PEOPLE v. REELS (2005)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered August 8, 2003, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 The defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily pleaded guilty (see People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170).   The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was coerced is unpreserved for appellate review.   The defendant did not move to vacate his plea, nor did he otherwise raise this issue before the County Court (see People v. Konstantinides, 295 A.D.2d 537, 538-539, 744 N.Y.S.2d 447;  People v. Coles, 240 A.D.2d 419, 658 N.Y.S.2d 1005).   In any event, the County Court acted properly in advising him of the authorized maximum sentence which could have been imposed had he been convicted after trial and the actual sentence to be imposed under the plea agreement (see People v. Allen, 273 A.D.2d 319, 710 N.Y.S.2d 535;  People v. Green, 240 A.D.2d 513, 658 N.Y.S.2d 133;  People v. Jones, 232 A.D.2d 505, 648 N.Y.S.2d 331).

 Furthermore, the defendant's conclusory allegations regarding his dissatisfaction with counsel were refuted by the record and insufficient to warrant the substitution of assigned counsel (see People v. Carter, 304 A.D.2d 771, 757 N.Y.S.2d 776;  People v. Rivas, 260 A.D.2d 583, 688 N.Y.S.2d 604;  People v. Anthony, 208 A.D.2d 637, 618 N.Y.S.2d 247).

To the extent that the defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel raised in his supplemental pro se brief involve matter dehors the record, they may not be reviewed on direct appeal (see People v. Campbell, 6 A.D.3d 623, 774 N.Y.S.2d 806;  People v. Aguirre, 304 A.D.2d 771, 757 N.Y.S.2d 776;  People v. O'Connor, 291 A.D.2d 573, 737 N.Y.S.2d 878).   Insofar as we are able to review the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 714, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584;  People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 798-799, 497 N.Y.S.2d 903, 488 N.E.2d 834;  People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).   The defendant received an advantageous plea, and the record does not cast doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel (see People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397, 404, 633 N.Y.S.2d 270, 657 N.E.2d 265;  People v. Boodhoo, 191 A.D.2d 448, 449, 593 N.Y.S.2d 882).

The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit (see People v. Carter, 304 A.D.2d 771, 757 N.Y.S.2d 776;  Matter of Madison v. Goord, 274 A.D.2d 483, 711 N.Y.S.2d 432).