| People v Maye |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 05798 [64 AD3d 617] |
| July 7, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Ondre Maye, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas P. Zugibe, District Attorney, New City, N.Y. (Itamar J. Yeger of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.),rendered April 9, 2008, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of marijuana in thesecond degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
At the time of the plea, the defendant, after the County Court had fully apprised him of theconsequences of his plea, admitted that he had a full and complete opportunity to speak tocounsel and was satisfied with his counsel's legal advice and representation (see People vHarris, 61 NY2d 9 [1983]; People v Harris, 222 AD2d 522 [1995]; People vRichardson, 214 AD2d 624, 625 [1995]; People v Zaia, 181 AD2d 931 [1992];People v Williams, 178 AD2d 570 [1991]; People v White, 165 AD2d 820[1990]; People v Brownlee, 158 AD2d 610, 611 [1990]). Despite the defendant'ssubsequent protestations, the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily pleaded guiltyupon the advice of counsel and, in so doing, secured a favorable sentence (see People vHarris, 61 NY2d 9 [1983]).
The defendant's claim that counsel gave him the wrong advice regarding the applicability ofthe presumption of possession rests largely on matter dehors the record and, to that extent, itcannot be reviewed on this direct appeal (see People v Ramos, 63 NY2d 640, 643[1984]; People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520, 525 [1978]; People v Selikoff, 35NY2d 227, 244 [1974], cert denied 419 US 1122 [1975]; People v France, 241AD2d 525 [1997]; People v Hodge, 226 AD2d 1124 [1996]; People v Dunn, 173AD2d 725 [1991]). To the extent that the claim can be reviewed, the defendant's unsupportedconclusory allegation that defense counsel failed to adequately or effectively explain his rightsand possible defenses did not warrant the vacatur of his plea of guilty (see People vStevens, 193 AD2d 635 [1993]; People v Mitchell, 187 AD2d 676 [1992];People v Bourdonnay, 160 AD2d 1014, 1015 [1990]). Moreover, under thesecircumstances, no further inquiry was necessary and the court did not improvidently exercise itsdiscretion in denying, without a hearing, the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty(see People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520 [1978]; People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926[1974]; People v James, 159 AD2d 723, 724 [1990]; People v Brownlee, 158AD2d 610 [1990]).
Moreover, the record reveals that the defendant received meaningful representation [*2]at his plea and sentencing (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d137 [1981]). Skelos, J.P., Santucci, Dickerson and Eng, JJ., concur.