| People v Aubrey |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04476 [73 AD3d 1393] |
| May 27, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JeffreyAubrey, Appellant. |
—[*1] Andrew J. Wylie, District Attorney, Plattsburgh (Chantelle Schember of counsel), forrespondent.
Egan Jr., J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton Court (McGill, J.),rendered January 15, 2009, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminalpossession of a controlled substance in the third degree.
Defendant waived indictment and pleaded guilty to a superior court information charginghim with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. Pursuant to the pleaagreement, defendant was thereafter sentenced to a term of three years in prison, to be followedby two years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals and we affirm.
Defendant's claims that his plea was not entered knowingly, voluntarily or intelligently andthat he was denied the effective assistance of counsel are not preserved for our review due to hisfailure to move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Gorrell, 63 AD3d1381, 1381 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 744 [2009]; People v Dantzler, 63 AD3d 1376,1377 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 799 [2010]). Moreover, with regard to the plea, thepreservation rule is inapplicable as defendant made no statements during the plea allocution thatcast doubt on his guilt or tended to negate a material element of the crime (see People v Scitz, 67 AD3d1251, 1251 [2009]). In any event, defendant's claims are without merit, as the record revealsthat County Court fully apprised defendant of the ramifications of pleading guilty and defendantcommunicated his understanding on the record, relinquished his rights and freely [*2]admitted his guilt (see People v Swarts, 64 AD3d 801, 802 [2009]). Further, contraryto defendant's contention, it was not necessary that defendant recite the facts underlying hiscrime (see People v Smith, 57AD3d 1237, 1237 [2008]).
As to defendant's contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel, hisclaims that counsel failed to meet with him, make certain pretrial motions, investigate certaindefenses and pressured him into pleading guilty concern matters outside the record and are notproperly the subject of a direct appeal (see People v Carroll, 299 AD2d 572, 572-573[2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 626 [2003]). Finally, as the record reflects that defendant didnot validly waive his right to appeal (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255-256 [2006]), we haveconsidered defendant's challenge to the severity of his agreed-upon prison sentence and findneither an abuse of discretion by County Court nor extraordinary circumstances warranting areduction in the interest of justice (seePeople v Parsons, 65 AD3d 716, 716 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 838 [2009]).
Cardona, P.J., Spain, Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.