PEOPLE v. ROYAL

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Alfred ROYAL, Appellant.

Decided: September 21, 2006

Before:  MERCURE, J.P., CREW III, SPAIN, MUGGLIN and ROSE, JJ. Louis N. Altman, Hurley, for appellant. P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Sean T. Childs of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lamont, J.), rendered February 18, 2005 in Albany County, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Defendant was charged in a five-count indictment with various crimes stemming from his possession and sale of heroin.   Following a pretrial suppression hearing, County Court (Herrick, J.) denied defendant's motion to suppress the drugs and drug paraphernalia that had been seized.   Defendant thereafter pleaded guilty to attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.   Prior to sentencing, defendant moved to withdraw his guilty plea and reopen the suppression hearing on the basis that he had been denied the effective assistance of counsel.   As relevant here, defendant claimed that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered because his attorney misinformed him regarding the possible term of incarceration that he faced.   Supreme Court denied the motion and sentenced defendant to 3 to 9 years in prison.   Defendant now appeals.

We affirm.   Prior to pleading guilty, defendant indicated that he understood his rights, had fully discussed the case and potential defenses with his attorney, was satisfied with his attorney's representation and was entering his guilty plea freely and voluntarily (see People v. La Caille, 26 A.D.3d 592, 593, 811 N.Y.S.2d 132 [2006], lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 835, 814 N.Y.S.2d 83, 847 N.E.2d 380 [2006];  People v. Henning, 2 A.D.3d 979, 980, 768 N.Y.S.2d 394 [2003], lv. denied 2 N.Y.3d 740, 778 N.Y.S.2d 466, 810 N.E.2d 919 [2004] ).   The record also reveals that defense counsel, who conferred with defendant immediately after Supreme Court detailed the agreed-upon sentence, obtained a very favorable plea bargain which significantly reduced defendant's prison exposure.   Under these circumstances, we conclude that defendant was afforded meaningful representation and that his plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v. Bolden, 14 A.D.3d 934, 935, 787 N.Y.S.2d 911 [2005], lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 796, 795 N.Y.S.2d 172, 828 N.E.2d 88 [2005];  People v. Thigpen, 12 A.D.3d 934, 935, 785 N.Y.S.2d 584 [2004];  People v. Stone, 9 A.D.3d 498, 499, 779 N.Y.S.2d 302 [2004], lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 712, 785 N.Y.S.2d 40, 818 N.E.2d 682 [2004] ).   Defendant's remaining arguments are precluded by his valid waiver of his right to appeal (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 255, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 [2006] ).

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

MERCURE, J.P.

CREW III, SPAIN, MUGGLIN and ROSE, JJ., concur.

Copied to clipboard