| People v Aguayo |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04209 [73 AD3d 938] |
| May 11, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Eduardo Aguayo, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Gary Fidel and Linda Cantoni ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Blumenfeld, J.), both rendered October 23, 2008, convicting him of driving while intoxicated asa felony under indictment No. 1357/07, and enterprise corruption and criminal possession ofstolen property in the fourth degree under indictment No. 1824/07, upon his pleas of guilty, andimposing sentences.
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
"A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court"(People v Levy, 39 AD3d 670[2007]; see CPL 220.60 [3]; People v Jackson, 56 AD3d 492, 492-493 [2008]; People v Gutierrez, 35 AD3d883). Here, the defendant's plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made (seePeople v Jackson, 56 AD3d at 492-493 [2006]; People v Gedin, 46 AD3d 701 [2007]; People v Gutierrez,35 AD3d at 883). The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was coerced is belied by therecord (see People v Jackson, 56 AD3d at 492-493; People v Gedin, 46 AD3d at701; People v Gutierrez, 35 AD3d at 883).
"[T]he defendant's waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his contention that hewas denied the effective assistance of counsel, except to the extent that the alleged ineffectiveassistance affected the voluntariness of his plea" (People v Gedin, 46 AD3d at 701; see People v Dixon, 41 AD3d861, 862 [2007]). To the extent that the defendant is claiming that the ineffective assistanceof counsel rendered his plea involuntary, the record reveals that the defendant received anadvantageous plea, and nothing in the record casts doubt on the effectiveness of counsel (seePeople v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Mercer, 69 AD3d 960 [2010]; People v Brooks, 36 AD3d 929[2007]; People v Boodhoo, 191 AD2d 448, 449 [1993]; People v Mayes, 133AD2d 905, 906 [1987]). Moreover, the defendant stated at the plea allocution that he wassatisfied with his counsel's representation (see People v Jackson, 56 AD3d at 492-493;People v Sherrill, 27 AD3d588 [2006]).
The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his challenge to the[*2]sentences as excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248 [2006]; People vJackson, 56 AD3d at 492-493; People v Gallo, 54 AD3d 964 [2008]). Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Lottand Sgroi, JJ., concur.