| People v Harmon |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 03066 [50 AD3d 318] |
| April 3, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Maurice Harmon, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Timothy C. Stone of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert M. Stolz, J.), rendered December 7,2005, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal possession of aweapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of1½ to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims are unreviewable on direct appealbecause they involve matters outside the record including attorney-client consultations and theattorney's plea-bargaining strategy, with particular reference to his concession of his client'ssecond felony offender status (see People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; Peoplev Love, 57 NY2d 998 [1982]). On the existing record, to the extent it permits review, wefind that defendant received effective assistance (see People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404[1995]), and that he has not shown that any potential conflict between himself and his attorneyoperated on the defense or caused him any prejudice (see People v Abar, 99 NY2d 406,411 [2003]).
After sufficient inquiry (see People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520 [1978]), the courtproperly denied defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The only ground defendantasserted was that he took the plea "under false pretenses he would be eligible for shock parole,"apparently referring to a shock incarceration program (see Correction Law art 26-A). Thecourt correctly determined that this claim was contradicted by the plea allocution, wheredefendant expressly [*2]disclaimed any off-the-record promises.Furthermore, there was no need for the court to assign new counsel for the plea withdrawalapplication. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, McGuire and Acosta, JJ.