| People v Lamont |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 01490 [125 AD3d 1106] |
| February 19, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vHenri Lamont, Jr., Also Known as Dre, Appellant. |
Brent R. Stack, Valatie, for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Nikki Kowalski ofcounsel), for respondent.
McCarthy, J.P. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County(Breslin, J.), rendered May 22, 2012, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of thecrime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.
In satisfaction of an indictment containing 20 counts against defendant, he pleadedguilty to one count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. Inaccordance with the plea bargain, County Court sentenced him, as a second felonyoffender, to seven years in prison, followed by three years of postrelease supervision.Defendant appeals.
We affirm. Defendant failed to preserve his argument that County Court erred ingranting the People's application to amend the indictment, as he did not oppose thatapplication (see People vWimberly, 86 AD3d 806, 807 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 863 [2011];People v Rivera, 22 AD3d888, 889 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 780 [2006]). Defendant's valid waiver ofappeal forecloses his argument that the court erred in denying his motions (see People v Frasier, 105AD3d 1079, 1080 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1088 [2014]; People v Lewis, 95 AD3d1442, 1443 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 998 [2012]), as well as his claims ofineffective assistance of counsel that are not related to the plea process or thevoluntariness of the plea (seePeople v Abdullah, 122 AD3d 958, 959 [2014]; People v Barton, 113 AD3d927, 928 [2014]).
We reject defendant's argument that his plea was not knowing, intelligent andvoluntary, [*2]inasmuch as the record belies his assertionthat County Court coerced him into pleading guilty. The court's statements regardingdefendant's sentencing exposure were informative, not coercive (see People v Ross, 117 AD3d1342, 1343 [2014]; Peoplev Seuffert, 104 AD3d 1021, 1022 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1009[2013]). The arguments that defendant raises in his pro se brief are based on informationoutside the record, and are more appropriately the basis of a motion pursuant to CPLarticle 440.[FN*]
Rose, Egan Jr. and Devine, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Footnote *:We will not considerdocuments appended to defendant's pro se brief that are outside the record. Althoughdefendant previously made a CPL article 440 motion that was denied, and this Court didnot grant him permission to appeal that denial, it appears that the arguments in his currentbrief are not identical to those in his prior motion.