| People v Bravo |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 02962 [72 AD3d 697] |
| April 6, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Renee Paul Bravo, 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 (Bartlett,J.), rendered July 20, 2006, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts), uponhis plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty is addressed to the sound discretion of the sentencingcourt (see CPL 220.60 [3]; People v Villalobos, 71 AD3d 924 [2010]; People v Hearns, 70 AD3d 856[2010]). Here, the County Court's denial of the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guiltywas not an improvident exercise of discretion (see People v Massey, 70 AD3d 722 [2010]; People v Rivera, 65 AD3d 1265[2009]; People v Perazzo, 65 AD3d1058, 1059 [2009]).
The record reveals that the defendant's plea of guilty was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent(see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536 [1993]; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9[1983]; People v Mann, 32 AD3d865, 866 [2006]). His contention that the plea was coerced by the County Court and bydefense counsel is without merit. The County Court did not threaten to sentence the defendant tothe maximum term upon a conviction after trial, but only informed him of his sentence exposurein that event. Such remarks are informative, not coercive (see People v Robinson, 64 AD3d 1248 [2009]; People vPagan, 297 AD2d 582 [2002]). Although the County Court misstated the defendant'ssentencing exposure, we find, under the circumstances here, including the defendant's age andthe statutory provisions governing multiple consecutive sentences (see Penal Law§ 70.30), that the misstatement could not have influenced the defendant's decision to pleadguilty (see People v Garcia, 92 NY2d 869, 870-871 [1998]; People v Bruchanan, 37 AD3d169 [2007]).
Moreover, to the extent that the defendant's contentions regarding the effectiveness of hisattorney involve matter dehors the record, they may not be reviewed on direct appeal (see People v Moss, 70 AD3d 862[2010]; People v Vasquez, 40AD3d 1134, 1135 [2007]). To the extent that the defendant's claims regarding his attorneyare based on matters appearing in the record, they are meritless (see [*2]People v Vega, 256 AD2d 367, 368 [1998]). The record castsno doubt on counsel's effectiveness (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; People v Moss, 70 AD3d 862[2010]; cf. Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]).
Finally, the defendant pleaded guilty with the full understanding that he would receive thesentence actually imposed and, therefore, he has no basis now to complain that the sentenceimposed is excessive (see People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816, 817 [1984]). In any event,the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).Fisher, J.P., Covello, Balkin, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.