| People v Brown |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 02511 [49 AD3d 1028] |
| March 20, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James R.Brown, Appellant. |
—[*1] Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton (Joann Rose Parry of counsel), forrespondent.
Peters, J.P. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.),rendered April 11, 2006, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of assault inthe second degree.
Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to assault in the seconddegree in full satisfaction of the charges pending against him. County Court sentenced him inaccordance with the plea agreement as a second felony offender to three years in prison, with fiveyears of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his guilty plea is not properly beforeus given his failure to move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Folk, 43 AD3d 1229,1230 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1033 [2008]). In any event, our review of the recordsatisfies us that, contrary to his contention, defendant was not coerced into pleading guilty anddefendant's plea was entered voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently (see People v Denson, 40 AD3d1266, 1266 [2007]; People vBowman, 34 AD3d 935, 937 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 844 [2007]).
We also find defendant's contention that he received ineffective assistance of counsel to bewithout merit. Counsel made appropriate pretrial motions and negotiated an advantageous [*2]plea agreement to a lower level felony (see People v Ellis, 43 AD3d 485,487 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 961 [2007]; People v Laffin, 29 AD3d 1034, 1034-1035 [2006], lvdenied 7 NY3d 791 [2006]). Although there was some general confusion as to the terms ofincarceration and postrelease supervision, there is nothing in the record that casts doubt oncounsel's effectiveness (see People vMing, 35 AD3d 962, 965 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 883 [2007]; People vLaffin, 29 AD3d at 1034-1035). Finally, defendant's sentence was neither harsh norexcessive. Defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea agreement and, given hisextensive criminal history, we find no extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction insentencing (see People v Cain, 29AD3d 1157, 1157 [2006]).
Rose, Lahtinen, Kane and Malone Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.