| People v Pickett |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 04525 [128 AD3d 1275] |
| May 28, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Isiah Pickett, Also Known as Trife, Also Known as Ike,Appellant. |
Aaron A. Louridas, Delmar, for appellant.
D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel),for respondent.
Lynch, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams,J.), rendered October 19, 2012, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimeof criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.
In satisfaction of 13 charges contained in an indictment stemming from his sale ofcocaine on multiple occasions, defendant entered a guilty plea to criminal sale of acontrolled substance in the third degree. Defendant was sentenced in accordance with theplea agreement to a prison term of five years, with three years of postrelease supervision,and ordered to pay restitution. He now appeals.
We affirm.[FN*]Defendant's claims that his guilty plea was not voluntary, that the plea [*2]allocution was not factually sufficient, and that he was notafforded the effective assistance of counsel were not preserved for our review, as he didnot raise them in an appropriate postallocution motion and he made no statements duringthe plea colloquy that would bring this matter within the narrow exception to thepreservation requirement (see CPL 220.60 [3]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d662, 665-666 [1988]; People vSkidds, 123 AD3d 1342, 1342-1343 [2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 992 [Apr. 20, 2015]). In any event, these claims lack merit. It was not necessary fordefendant to personally recite the elements of the crime or engage in a factual recitation,and his "unequivocal affirmative responses to County Court's questions were sufficient toestablish the elements of the crime charged" (People v Smith, 112 AD3d 1232, 1233 [2013], lvdenied 22 NY3d 1203 [2014] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v Seeber, 4 NY3d780, 781 [2005]). Further, the record reflects that defendant was advised of therights he was relinquishing by pleading guilty and the related consequences, heunderstood them and had adequate time to confer with counsel, and he entered the guiltyplea voluntarily.
Moreover, defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims predominantlyconcern what counsel advised him or other matters outside the record on appeal whichare more properly pursued in a motion pursuant to CPL article 440, where a record couldbe made (see People vJerome, 98 AD3d 1188, 1189 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 987 [2012]).Given, among other considerations, the advantageous plea agreement negotiated bycounsel that greatly reduced defendant's sentencing exposure and defendant'sacknowledged satisfaction, during the plea allocution, of counsel's representation, wefind that the record fails to support defendant's claim that he was deprived of meaningfulrepresentation (see People vMitchell, 73 AD3d 1346, 1347 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 922 [2010];People v Corbett, 52 AD3d1023, 1024 [2008]). Finally, in view of defendant's criminal history and drug-sellingactivity, we are not persuaded that extraordinary circumstances are present or that therewas an abuse of sentencing discretion so as to warrant a reduction of the favorable,bargained-for sentence in the interest of justice (see People v White, 47 AD3d 1062, 1064 [2008], lvdenied 10 NY3d 818 [2008]). Inasmuch as the plea agreement included restitution inthe amount ordered and defendant did not request a hearing or otherwise challenge theamount at sentencing, his challenge to the amount of restitution ordered is unpreservedfor our review and we find that corrective action is not warranted in the interest of justice(see People v Brown, 122AD3d 1006, 1007 [2014]).
Lahtinen, J.P., Garry and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.
Footnote *:Defendant'scodefendant, Gary Watkins, was subsequently convicted after trial of multiple counts ofboth criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession ofa controlled substance in the third degree, including three controlled buys wheredefendant and Watkins acted in concert, and this Court affirmed Watkins' judgment ofconviction (People vWatkins, 121 AD3d 1425 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1124 [2015]).