PEOPLE v. NUCCIO (2020)

ORDERED that the order is affirmed.

On April 3, 2012, defendant was charged with endangering the welfare of a child (Penal Law § 260.10 [1]), as the result of an incident involving defendant and one of his children. While in custody during the initial investigation into that incident, defendant was directed by the police to turn over his firearms. Defendant produced an unlicensed handgun and was subsequently charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 265.01 [1]).

On February 22, 2013, the misdemeanor complaint charging defendant with endangering the welfare of a child was dismissed, and defendant pleaded guilty to attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 265.01 [1]).

Five years later, defendant moved, pursuant to CPL 440.10, to vacate the judgment of conviction on the ground that he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel. In an order entered April 2, 2018, the Criminal Court, without a hearing, denied defendant's motion.

By pleading guilty, defendant forfeited appellate review of claims of ineffective assistance of counsel that did not directly involve the plea negotiation process and sentence (see People v. Petgen, 55 NY2d 529, 535 [1982]; People v. Donovan, 133 AD3d 615, 615 [2015]). To the extent that defendant contends that the ineffective assistance of counsel involved the negotiation of the plea, the record reveals that he received an advantageous plea, and nothing casts doubt upon the apparent effectiveness of defendant's counsel (see People v. Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v. Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]; People v. Dunne, 106 AD3d 928, 929 [2013]). There is nothing in the record to support defendant's claim that counsel's performance was deficient (see Strickland v. Washington, 466 US 668, 687-688 [1984]). As defendant failed to show any ground constituting a legal basis for vacating the judgment of conviction, his CPL 440.10 motion was properly denied without a hearing (see CPL 440.30 [4] [a]; People v. Hill, 57 Misc 3d 154[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51605[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2017] ).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

ADAMS, P.J., TOLBERT and GARGUILO, JJ., concur.