| People v Drago |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 03472 [50 AD3d 920] |
| April 15, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v MarioDrago, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Michael J. Brennan of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.),rendered November 8, 2006, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon his pleaof guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The decision as to whether to permit a defendant to withdraw a previously entered plea ofguilty rests within the sound discretion of the court (see People v Frederick, 45 NY2d520 [1978]; People v DeLeon, 40AD3d 1008, 1008-1009 [2007]; People v Mann, 32 AD3d 865, 866 [2006]; People v Turner, 23 AD3d 503[2005]; People v Watson, 13 AD3d402, 403 [2004]). Here, to the extent that the defendant's pro se oral application to theCounty Court may be construed as one, in effect, to withdraw his plea of guilty on the groundthat it was involuntary, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying, withouta hearing, such an application (seePeople v Owens, 43 AD3d 1185 [2007]; People v Rangolan, 295 AD2d 543[2002]; People v Fernandez, 291 AD2d 456 [2002]). The record shows that thedefendant's plea of guilty was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered (see People vGarcia, 92 NY2d 869, 870 [1998]; People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993];People v Grimes, 35 AD3d882, 883 [2006]).
The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his claimthat he was deprived of his right to effective assistance of counsel, except to the extent that thealleged ineffective assistance may have affected the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Charpentier, 44 AD3d680 [2007]; People v Sanchez,33 AD3d 633, 634 [2006]). With regard thereto, his contention rests mainly on matterdehors the record and, therefore, is not reviewable on direct appeal (see People v DeLuca, 45 AD3d777 [2007]; People v Sanchez, 33 AD3d at 634). Insofar as the claim is reviewableon the record before us, we find that counsel provided the defendant with meaningfulrepresentation (see People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]). Skelos, J.P., Dillon,Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.