| People v Quiman |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 02179 [71 AD3d 921] |
| March 16, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v BrianQuiman, Appellant. |
—[*1]
Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County(Cacace, J.), rendered April 28, 2008, convicting him of burglary in the third degree undersuperior court information No. 07-01501, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence, (2) ajudgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Walker, J.), rendered May 1, 2008,convicting him of reckless endangerment in the first degree under superior court information No.07-01522, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence, (3) a judgment of the Supreme Court,Westchester County (Walker, J.), also rendered May 1, 2008, convicting him of robbery in thethird degree under superior court information No. 07-01585, upon his plea of guilty, andimposing sentence, and (4) an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County(Colangelo, J.), rendered April 30, 2008, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposedby the same court under superior court information No. 06-00841 upon a finding that he hadviolated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment uponhis previous conviction of attempted burglary in the third degree.
Ordered that the judgments and the amended judgment are affirmed.
Having failed to move to withdraw his pleas prior to sentencing, the defendant's contentionsthat the pleas were not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered are unpreserved forappellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Antoine, 59 AD3d 560 [2009]; People v Castillo-Cordero, 54 AD3d1054 [2008]; People v Bevins,27 AD3d 572 [2006]; People vMartin, 7 AD3d 640 [2004]). In any event, the defendant's pleas of guilty wereknowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d536, 543 [1993]; People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 283 [1992]; People vMoissett, 76 NY2d 909, 910-911 [1990]; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 16 [1983];People v Nixon, 21 NY2d 338 [1967]). To the extent that the defendant's contentionsregarding any alleged ineffective assistance of counsel rest on matters outside the record, theyare not reviewable on direct appeal (seePeople v Ali, 55 AD3d 919 [2008]; People v Drago, 50 AD3d 920 [2008]). Insofar as the contentionsare reviewable, we find that the defendant received meaningful representation (see [*2]People v Drago, 50 AD3d 920 [2008]; People v Brooks, 36 AD3d 929,930 [2007]; People v Grimes, 35AD3d 882, 883 [2006]).
Since the defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive thesentences which were thereafter actually imposed, he has no basis to now complain that hissentences are excessive (see People vDe Alvarez, 59 AD3d 732 [2009]; People v Fanelli, 8 AD3d 296 [2004]; People v Mejia, 6 AD3d 630, 631[2004]; People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816 [1984]). In any event, the sentences imposedwere not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Skelos, J.P., Covello, Eng,Chambers and Sgroi, JJ., concur.