| People v Rusielewicz |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 09057 [45 AD3d 704] |
| November 13, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Anthony Rusielewicz, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Linda Breen ofcounsel; Shannon Ashford on the brief), for respondent.
Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barros,J.), both rendered October 6, 2000, convicting him of rape in the third degree under indictmentNo. 2925/00, and assault in the second degree and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle underindictment No. 4426/00, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, or intelligently madeis unpreserved for appellate review since he did not move to withdraw his plea on this groundprior to sentencing (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Jones, 41 AD3d 509 [2007]; People v Nicholas, 8 AD3d 300[2004]). In any event, to the extent that the claim rests on the record, we find that the defendant'splea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v Scuderi, 33 AD3d 1026, 1027 [2006]). That portion ofhis claim that is based on matter dehors the record cannot be reviewed on direct appeal (see People v Vasquez, 40 AD3d1134, 1135 [2007]). The defendant's claim that he was denied his right to the effectiveassistance of counsel rests on matters partially dehors the record as well and to that extent it maynot be reviewed on direct appeal (seePeople v Gonzalez, 44 AD3d 790 [2007]; People v Bolden, 44 AD3d 871[2007]). Insofar as the claim rests on the record, we find that the defendant's counsel was notineffective (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]; People v Petteway, 22 AD3d 772 [2005]).[*2]
The sentences imposed were not excessive (seePeople v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83 [1982]). Crane, J.P., Goldstein, Florio and Dillon, JJ.,concur.