| People v Edwards |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 06768 [43 AD3d 1227] |
| September 20, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v KareemEdwards, Appellant. |
—[*1] P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Alison M. Thorne of counsel), forrespondent.
Kane, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Teresi, J.), rendered November 17,2005 in Albany County, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminalpossession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.
Defendant waived indictment and pleaded guilty to a superior court information charginghim with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree. Supreme Courtthereafter sentenced him in accordance with the plea agreement as a predicate felon to 1½years in prison followed by two years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Defendant's assertions that his guilty plea was involuntary and he was denied theeffective assistance of counsel are unpreserved for our review in light of his failure to move towithdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Myricks, 36 AD3d 1006, 1006 [2007], lvdenied 8 NY3d 948 [2007]). In any event, defendant's claims are without merit. During theplea colloquy, defendant indicated that he had sufficient time to speak with his attorney and wassatisfied with his services. He also acknowledged that he understood his rights and theramifications of pleading guilty and freely admitted the facts underlying the crime. Under thesecircumstances, we conclude that defendant entered his plea voluntarily, knowingly [*2]and intelligently (see People v Means, 35 AD3d 975, 976 [2006], lv denied 8NY3d 948 [2007]) and, noting the favorable plea agreement which reduced his sentenceexposure, received meaningful representation (see People v Lewis, 39 AD3d 1025, 1026 [2007]).
Finally, we have considered defendant's contention that his sentence was harsh andexcessive, yet find it to be unavailing. Nothing in the record convinces us that Supreme Courtabused its discretion nor are there any extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of thenegotiated sentence (see People vQasem, 39 AD3d 960, 961 [2007]).
Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.