| People v Brown |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 08893 [68 AD3d 1150] |
| December 3, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v TimothyBrown, Appellant. |
—[*1] Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), forrespondent.
Kane, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Bruhn, J.), renderedMay 29, 2008, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal contempt inthe first degree.
Defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of criminal contempt in the first degree. Pursuant tothe plea agreement, defendant was sentenced to five years of probation and 25 days ofcommunity service. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Defendant's contention that his plea was not voluntarily or knowingly entered isunpreserved for our review due to his failure to move to withdraw his plea or vacate hisjudgment of conviction (see People vCintron, 62 AD3d 1157, 1158 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 742 [2009];People v Thompkins, 58 AD3d 1068, 1068 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 822[2009]). Further, the narrow exception to the preservation rule is inapplicable here as defendantdid not make any statements during the allocution that negated an essential element of the crimeor cast doubt upon his guilt (see Peoplev Grant, 60 AD3d 1202, 1202-1203 [2009]). In any event, to the extent that defendantcontends that he was not informed of the potential ramifications of pleading guilty to a felony,any failure to inform him that the plea may subject him to an enhanced sentence in the futuredoes not impact the validity of the plea (see People v Folk, 43 AD3d 1229, 1230 [2007], lv denied9 NY3d 1033 [2008]; People v August, 33 AD3d [*2]1046, 1050 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 878 [2007]).
Defendant also contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel based uponcounsel's alleged failure to explore alternatives to the plea offer and for providing defendant withincorrect information regarding the maximum sentence defendant would be exposed to at trial.These claims are also not preserved for review, and, as they concern matters outside the record,are more properly the subject of a CPL article 440 motion (see People v Anthony, 52 AD3d 864, 866 [2008], lvdenied 11 NY3d 733 [2008]; People v McKeney, 45 AD3d 974, 975 [2007]). Finally, withregard to defendant's claim that his sentence was harsh and excessive, we do not find that CountyCourt abused its discretion or that extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant a reduction ofthe sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Perkins, 62 AD3d 1160, 1162 [2009], lvdenied 13 NY3d 748 [2009]; People v Qasem, 39 AD3d 960, 961 [2007], lv denied 10NY3d 770 [2008]).
Peters, J.P., Rose, Kavanagh and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.