| People v Bridge |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 00017 [69 AD3d 969] |
| January 7, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael L.Bridge, Appellant. |
—[*1] Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton (Rita M. Basile of counsel), forrespondent.
Garry, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.),rendered April 25, 2008, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminalsale of a firearm in the third degree.
Defendant was indicted in Broome County on six counts relating to the unlawful possessionand sale of a firearm. At the same time, felony charges were pending against him in TiogaCounty relating to the incident that led to the Broome County indictment. Defendant pleadedguilty to one count of criminal sale of a firearm in the third degree in satisfaction of the BroomeCounty indictment and was sentenced as a second felony offender to a prison term of five years,to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision. He now appeals.
We affirm. Defendant's contention that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily orintelligently made was not preserved for appellate review because he did not move to withdrawhis plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Brennan, 62 AD3d 1167, 1168 [2009], lvdenied 13 NY3d 794 [2009]; People v Edwards, 43 AD3d 1227, 1228 [2007], lv denied9 NY3d 1005 [2007]). Moreover, since defendant made no statements during the plea allocutionthat cast doubt on his guilt or tended to negate a material element of the crime, the narrowexception to the preservation rule is inapplicable (see People v Dixon, 62 AD3d 1214, [*2]1214 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 743 [2009]). In any event,defendant's claim that he was misled by an alleged discrepancy between a sentence offered tohim in Tioga County and an earlier representation made by his attorney is belied by the record,which demonstrates that he expressed his confusion about the Tioga County sentence during anearlier proceeding and that, at the time of his plea, the terms of the Broome County and TiogaCounty agreements were fully explained to him. He confirmed that he understood theagreements, his rights, and the ramifications of pleading guilty, and that he had sufficient time tospeak with his attorney (see e.g. Peoplev Creech, 56 AD3d 899, 900 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 815 [2009]; Peoplev Edwards, 43 AD3d at 1228).
Defendant's claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel is similarly unpreserved,at least insofar as it relates to the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Fiske, 68 AD3d 1149, 1150 [2009]; People v Dixon, 62 AD3d 1214,1214 [2009]). In any event, defendant confirmed in the course of the plea colloquy that he wasnot threatened or forced to plead guilty or promised anything in return for his plea (see People v Elliott, 62 AD3d1098, 1099 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 924 [2009]). Further, although defendant hadexpressed dissatisfaction with his counsel, County Court determined that his displeasure arosefrom the rejection of defendant's request for rehabilitation services in lieu of incarceration, andfully explained to defendant that the unavailability of such a resolution arose from the nature ofthe charges and defendant's criminal history rather than from any failure on counsel's part. Giventhe favorable disposition negotiated by counsel on defendant's behalf and the absence ofanything in the record suggesting a failure of effective assistance, we find that defendantreceived meaningful representation (seePeople v Scitz, 67 AD3d 1251, 1252 [2009]; People v Breedlove, 61 AD3d 1120, 1121 [2009], lvdenied 12 NY3d 913 [2009]).
Finally, defendant contends that the sentence he received was harsh and excessive. The courtacknowledged during sentencing that defendant had a history of mental health and substanceabuse problems. Given the nature and seriousness of the charges against him, his criminalhistory, and his lack of remorse, we find no abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstanceswarranting reduction (see People vFairley, 63 AD3d 1288, 1290 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 743 [2009]).
Cardona, P.J., Lahtinen, Kavanagh and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.