| People v LeGrady |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 03669 [50 AD3d 1059] |
| April 22, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Michael LeGrady, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Marcia R. Kucera and Steven A.Hovani of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Suffolk County (Gazzillo,J.), both rendered January 16, 2007, convicting him of criminal possession of a forged instrumentin the second degree under Superior Court information No. 2361-06 and burglary in the seconddegree under Superior Court information No. 3206-06, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposingsentences, and an amended judgment of the same court also rendered January 16, 2007, revokinga sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court under Suffolk County indictmentNo. 2376-03 upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, andimposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his conviction of attempted criminal sale of acontrolled substance in the third degree.
Ordered that the judgments and the amended judgment are affirmed.
Since the defendant failed to move to withdraw his pleas prior to sentencing, his currentcontention that the pleas were not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered isunpreserved for appellate review (see People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726 [1995]; People v Fecu, 38 AD3d 565[2007]; People v Huchital, 22 AD3d681 [2005]). This is not a case "where the defendant's recitation of the facts underlying thecrime[s] pleaded to clearly casts significant doubt upon the defendant's guilt or otherwise callsinto question the voluntariness of the plea" (People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]).[*2]In any event, the record demonstrates that the defendant'spleas of guilty were entered "voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently" (People vFiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]; see People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 283[1992]; People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909, 910-911 [1990]; People v Matos, 27 AD3d 485[2006]). The defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be reached on thisappeal since it is based on matter dehors the record (see People v Villacreses, 12 AD3d 624, 626 [2004]).
The sentences imposed were not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Dillon, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ., concur.