PEOPLE v. BOLDEN (2007)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D'Emic, J.), rendered October 7, 2004, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and petit larceny, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 The defendant contends that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made because he was not advised, at the time of his plea, that his sentence would include a five-year period of post-release supervision.   However, neither the sentencing minutes nor the sentencing court's order of commitment mentioned the imposition of any period of post-release supervision.   Therefore, the sentence actually imposed by the court never included, and does not now include, any period of post-release supervision (see Hill v. United States ex rel. Wampler, 298 U.S. 460, 56 S.Ct. 760, 80 L.Ed. 1283;  People v. Martinez, 40 A.D.3d 1012, 837 N.Y.S.2d 221;  People v. Royster, 40 A.D.3d 885, 835 N.Y.S.2d 732;  People v. Howell, 40 A.D.3d 882, 837 N.Y.S.2d 173;  Earley v. Murray, 451 F.3d 71, reh. denied 462 F.3d 147;  but see People v. Sparber, 34 A.D.3d 265, 823 N.Y.S.2d 405).   Since the defendant received precisely the sentence for which he bargained, his contention that he was never informed of a direct consequence of his plea is without merit (cf. People v. Louree, 8 N.Y.3d 541, 838 N.Y.S.2d 18, 869 N.E.2d 18;  People v. Catu, 4 N.Y.3d 242, 792 N.Y.S.2d 887, 825 N.E.2d 1081).   Accordingly, his plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made.

 The defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is based on matter dehors the record and may thus not be reviewed on direct appeal (see People v. Reels, 17 A.D.3d 488, 489, 795 N.Y.S.2d 241;  People v. Turner, 266 A.D.2d 245, 246, 697 N.Y.S.2d 668;  People v. Nicovic, 204 A.D.2d 493, 614 N.Y.S.2d 168).