| People v Moss |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 00993 [70 AD3d 862] |
| February 9, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Willie Moss, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Ronnie Jane Lamm of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.),rendered July 21, 2008, convicting him of sexual abuse in the second degree, upon his plea ofguilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
"A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty rests within the sound discretion of the CountyCourt" (People v McGhee, 62AD3d 1027 [2009]; see People vSeeber, 4 NY3d 780 [2005]; People v Pooler, 58 AD3d 757 [2009]; People v Drago, 50 AD3d 920[2008]; People v Mann, 32 AD3d865 [2006]; People vKucharczyk, 15 AD3d 595 [2005]). The County Court's "determination generally willnot be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion" (People v McGhee, 62AD3d at 1027; see People v Pooler, 58 AD3d at 757; People v DeLeon, 40 AD3d 1008 [2007]). A number of thedefendant's contentions in connection with his claim that his plea was not knowingly,voluntarily, or intelligently made are based on matters dehors the record, and thus cannot bereviewed on direct appeal (see People vVasquez, 40 AD3d 1134, 1135 [2007]). To the extent that the defendant's claim can bereviewed, the record establishes that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligentlyentered his negotiated plea of guilty (see generally People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242, 244-245 [2005];People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9,16-17 [1983]; People v Rhodes, 62AD3d 815, 816 [2009]). Accordingly, the County Court providently exercised its discretionin denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty.
The defendant's claim that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, whichallegedly rendered his plea involuntary, is also based principally on matter dehors the record,which cannot be reviewed on direct appeal (see People v Shemack, 46 AD3d 582, 583 [2007]; People v Bolden, 44 AD3d 784[2007]; People v Vasquez, 40 AD3d at 1135; People v Martinez, 33 AD3d 631, 632 [2006]; People v Cumba, 32 AD3d 444,444 [2006]). To the extent that the defendant's claim can be reviewed, the defendant's attorneyassisted him in obtaining a favorable plea agreement which limited the defendant's sentence tosix years probation and no period of incarceration, and there is nothing in the record which castsdoubt on counsel's effectiveness (see People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397 [1995]; People v Jackson, 56 AD3d 492,493 [2008]; People v Charpentier,44 AD3d 680, 681 [2007]; People vBrooks, 36 AD3d 929, 930 [2007]; People v Grimes, [*2]35 AD3d 882, 883 [2006]). Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Chambers andHall, JJ., concur.