| People v Milstead |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 02858 [61 AD3d 1179] |
| April 16, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v CaseyMilstead, Appellant. |
—[*1] Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton (Carole M. Cassidy of counsel), forrespondent.
Mercure, J.P. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.),rendered October 11, 2007, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime ofattempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.
In 2007, defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of attempted criminal possession of acontrolled substance in the third degree. He was sentenced, pursuant to the plea agreement, to aterm of imprisonment of three years to be followed by three years of postrelease supervision.Defendant now appeals, and we affirm.
Inasmuch as defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea or vacate his judgment ofconviction, his challenge to the voluntariness of his plea and his claim that his sentence wasimproperly limited are not preserved for our review (see People v Sorey, 55 AD3d 1063, 1064 [2008], lv denied11 NY3d 930 [2009]; People vHastings, 24 AD3d 954, 955 [2005]). Furthermore, this case does not fall within therare exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666[1988]; see also People v Louree, 8NY3d 541, 545-546 [2007]), and reversal in the interest of justice is not warranted here.Contrary to defendant's argument, our review of the record reveals that there were no promisesmade regarding [*2]defendant's enrollment in the ComprehensiveAlcohol and Substance Abuse Treatment program if he pleaded guilty (see People v Wrobel, 57 AD3d1499, 1500 [2008]; People vMartin, 55 AD3d 1304, 1304 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 899 [2008]; cf. People v Armstead, 52 AD3d966, 967-968 [2008]).
Defendant's claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel is similarlyunavailing. The record reflects that defendant received a favorable plea and there is nothing thatcasts doubt on the effectiveness of his counsel (see People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404[1995]; People v Williams, 35AD3d 971, 973 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 928 [2007]). Finally, we are notpersuaded that defendant's sentence was harsh and excessive. County Court imposed theagreed-upon sentence and we find no abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances in therecord warranting a reduction of his sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Clapper, 51 AD3d1336, 1337 [2008]).
Rose, Lahtinen, Malone Jr. and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.