| People v Ramsey |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 01977 [49 AD3d 565] |
| March 4, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Cedric Ramsey, Appellant. |
—[*1] William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Bridget Rahilly Steller ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.),rendered January 16, 2007, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea ofguilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligentis 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 Rusielewicz, 45 AD3d 704 [2007]; People v Scott, 39 AD3d 570, 571[2007]; People v Nicholas, 8 AD3d300 [2004]). In any event, to the extent that the contention can be reviewed on the record,we find that the defendant's plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered (seePeople v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662[1988]; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 17 [1983]).
The defendant's further contention that he was denied his right to the effective assistance ofcounsel under the Federal and State Constitutions rests on matter partially dehors the record,which cannot be reviewed on direct appeal (see People v Rusielewicz, 45 AD3d 704 [2007]; People v Gonzalez, 44 AD3d 871[2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]; People v Bolden, 44 AD3d 784 [2007]). To the extent that theclaim can be reviewed, the record does not support the defendant's contention that he was deniedthe effective assistance of counsel under either the Federal or the State Constitution (seeStrickland v [*2]Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]; People v McDonald, 1 NY3d 109[2003]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713 [1998]; People v Ford, 86 NY2d397, 404 [1995]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).
Moreover, since the defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receivethe sentence that was thereafter imposed, he has no basis to now complain that his sentence wasexcessive (see People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816 [1984]). Prudenti, P.J., Skelos, Miller,Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.