PEOPLE v. DECKER

Reset A A Font size: Print

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

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Kevin R. DECKER, Appellant.

Decided: September 21, 2006

Before:  CARDONA, P.J., SPAIN, MUGGLIN, LAHTINEN and KANE, JJ. David C. Roosa, Bainbridge, for appellant, and appellant pro se. Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton (Joann Rose Parry of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Mathews, J.), rendered August 10, 2004, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of burglary in the second degree and grand larceny in the third degree.

Having been charged with various crimes in two separate indictments, defendant pleaded guilty to burglary in the second degree and grand larceny in the third degree in satisfaction of both indictments.   He was thereafter sentenced in accordance with the negotiated plea agreement to concurrent prison terms of seven years for the burglary conviction and 1 to 3 years for the grand larceny conviction.

 Inasmuch as he never moved to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction, defendant has failed to preserve his claims that his plea was not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered into or was brought about by the ineffective assistance of counsel (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. Williams, 25 A.D.3d 927, 929, 807 N.Y.S.2d 470 [2006], lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 840, 814 N.Y.S.2d 88, 847 N.E.2d 385 [2006];  People v. Champion, 20 A.D.3d 772, 772-773, 798 N.Y.S.2d 567 [2005] ).   In any event, upon our review of the record, we are not persuaded that reversal of defendant's conviction is warranted in the interest of justice.   County Court thoroughly informed defendant of the rights he would be relinquishing by pleading guilty and defendant acknowledged his understanding of same. Defendant also admitted committing acts constituting the crimes in question and stated, on the record, that he was pleading guilty of his own volition (see People v. Champion, supra at 773, 798 N.Y.S.2d 567;  People v. Kearney, 14 A.D.3d 938, 938-939, 787 N.Y.S.2d 913 [2005], lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 854, 797 N.Y.S.2d 428, 830 N.E.2d 327 [2005] ).   Moreover, defendant indicated that he had thoroughly discussed the matter with counsel and, given that counsel brokered a plea agreement which greatly reduced defendant's sentencing exposure (see People v. Washington, 3 A.D.3d 741, 742, 770 N.Y.S.2d 789 [2004], lv. denied 2 N.Y.3d 747, 778 N.Y.S.2d 472, 810 N.E.2d 925 [2004];  People v. Crippa, 245 A.D.2d 811, 812, 666 N.Y.S.2d 781 [1997], lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 850, 677 N.Y.S.2d 80, 699 N.E.2d 440 [1998] ), we conclude that defendant received meaningful assistance (see generally People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397, 404, 633 N.Y.S.2d 270, 657 N.E.2d 265 [1995] ).

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

CARDONA, P.J.

SPAIN, MUGGLIN, LAHTINEN and KANE, JJ., concur.

Copied to clipboard