People v Sumahit
2010 NY Slip Op 03357 [72 AD3d 991]
April 20, 2010
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, June 9, 2010


The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Andrew Sumahit, Appellant.

[*1]Salvatore C. Adamo, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Bridget Rahilly Steller ofcounsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.),rendered November 6, 2008, convicting him of gang assault in the first degree, upon his plea ofguilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Since the defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea, his contention that his plea was notknowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered is unpreserved for appellate review (seeCPL 470.05 [2]; People v Antoine,59 AD3d 560 [2009]; People vCastillo-Cordero, 54 AD3d 1054 [2008]; People v Bevins, 27 AD3d 572 [2006]; People v Martin, 7 AD3d 640[2004]). In any event, his plea of guilty was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered(see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]; People v Callahan, 80NY2d 273, 283 [1992]; People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909, 910-911 [1990]; People vHarris, 61 NY2d 9, 16 [1983]; People v Nixon, 21 NY2d 338 [1967], certdenied 393 US 1067 [1969]).

To the extent that the defendant's contentions regarding any alleged ineffective assistance ofcounsel rest on matter outside the record, they are not reviewable on direct appeal (see People v Ali, 55 AD3d 919[2008]; People v Drago, 50 AD3d920 [2008]). Insofar as the contentions are reviewable, we find that the defendant receivedmeaningful representation (see People vDrago, 50 AD3d 920 [2008]; People v Brooks, 36 AD3d 929, 930 [2007]; People v Grimes, 35 AD3d 882,883 [2006]).

Since the defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive the sentencewhich was thereafter actually imposed, he has no basis to now complain that his sentence wasexcessive (see People v DeAlvarez, 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 sentence imposedwas not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Mastro, J.P., Santucci,Dickerson, Belen and Austin, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.