| People v Farrington |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 04401 [51 AD3d 1221] |
| May 15, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v HerbertFarrington, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kevin C. Kortright, District Attorney, Fort Edward (Katherine G. Henley of counsel), forrespondent.
Cardona, P.J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Washington County (Berke,J.), rendered May 26, 2006, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime ofattempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree.
Defendant, an inmate, was indicted for promoting prison contraband in the first degree afterhe was found in possession of a modified razor blade. During the ensuing plea allocution,defendant initially denied possessing the razor blade, however, after County Court refused toaccept the plea, defendant admitted possessing that item following consultation with his counsel.Defendant thereafter pleaded guilty to attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degreeand was sentenced as a second felony offender to 1½ to 3 years in prison to run consecutiveto the term of imprisonment he was serving for first degree manslaughter.
Defendant principally contends on this appeal that he was denied the effective assistance ofcounsel because defense counsel allowed him to plead guilty after he initially denied possessingthe contraband. Significantly, defendant's claim of ineffective assistance is not preserved for ourreview inasmuch as "he did not move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction"(People v Laffin, 29 AD3d1034, 1034 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 791 [2006]). In any event, were the issueproperly before us, we would find it lacking in merit since the record demonstrates that defendant"has been afforded meaningful representation" (People v [*2]Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]; see People v Scott, 12 AD3d 716,717 [2004], appeal dismissed 7 NY3d 843 [2006]). Notably, at the time of his guilty plea,defendant expressed satisfaction with the representation of defense counsel and specificallystated that he understood the consequences of the plea and had not been coerced or threatened inany way (see People v Baldwin, 36AD3d 1024, 1025 [2007]). Moreover, defense counsel successfully secured an advantageousplea agreement exposing defendant to less prison time than if he had been convicted of theoriginal charge after a trial. Accordingly, this record provides an insufficient basis to concludethat defendant did not receive the effective representation of counsel.
Defendant's remaining arguments, including his request that this Court reverse his convictionin the interest of justice (see CPL 210.40; People v Clayton, 41 AD2d 204, 206[1973]), have been examined and found to be unpersuasive.
Carpinello, Rose, Malone Jr. and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.