PEOPLE v. VASQUEZ

Reset A A Font size: Print

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

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Luis VASQUEZ, appellant.

Decided: May 29, 2007

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, MARK C. DILLON, and EDWARD D. CARNI, JJ. Michael G. Paul, New City, N.Y., for appellant. Michael E. Bongiorno, District Attorney, New City, N.Y. (Argiro Kosmetatos of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.), rendered August 10, 2005, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 The defendant's contentions that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, or intelligently made, and that he did not receive the effective assistance of trial counsel, are unpreserved for appellate review since he did not move to withdraw his plea on these grounds prior to sentencing (see People v. Clarke, 93 N.Y.2d 904, 906, 690 N.Y.S.2d 501, 712 N.E.2d 668;  People v. Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636, 637, 467 N.Y.S.2d 355, 454 N.E.2d 938;  People v. Wilson, 37 A.D.3d 744, 828 N.Y.S.2d 910;  People v. Lopez, 34 A.D.3d 599, 824 N.Y.S.2d 173;  People v. Cumba, 32 A.D.3d 444, 820 N.Y.S.2d 304), or based partly on matter dehors the record which cannot be reviewed on direct appeal (see People v. Wilson, supra;  People v. Reina, 35 A.D.3d 509, 826 N.Y.S.2d 143).   In any event, the defendant's plea of guilty was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered (see People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 17, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170).   Moreover, to the extent that the defendant's claim that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance is reviewable on direct appeal, 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. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).

 The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his claims that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v. Ramos, 7 N.Y.3d 737, 738, 819 N.Y.S.2d 853, 853 N.E.2d 222;  People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 253, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145;  People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 11, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022), and that the County Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying him youthful offender status (see People v. Valentin, 15 A.D.3d 424, 788 N.Y.S.2d 864;  People v. Friedlander, 11 A.D.3d 556, 782 N.Y.S.2d 645;  People v. Lofton, 6 A.D.3d 629, 629-630, 774 N.Y.S.2d 802).

Copied to clipboard