| People v Houck |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04878 [74 AD3d 1476] |
| June 10, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v MatthewHouck, Appellant. |
—[*1]
Stein, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Breslin, J.),rendered May 15, 2008, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary inthe first degree.
Defendant faced a multi-count indictment stemming from his unlawful entry into a person'shome, during which he caused physical injury to such person. Following a Huntleyhearing, County Court ruled that two statements given to police by defendant were admissible.Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to the crime of burglary in the first degree in fullsatisfaction of the indictment, and waived his right to appeal. Defendant was thereafter sentencedto a prison term of 8½ years, followed by a three-year period of postrelease supervision.Defendant now appeals and we affirm.
While defendant's contention that his guilty plea was involuntary survives his waiver ofappeal, it is unpreserved for our review as he failed to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate thejudgment of conviction (see People vThomas, 71 AD3d 1231, 1232 [2010]; People v Bridge, 71 AD3d 1197, 1198 [2010]; People v Miller, 70 AD3d 1120,1120-1121 [2010]). Likewise, even if we were to conclude that defendant's claim of ineffectiveassistance of counsel is not precluded from our review by his valid appeal waiver, such claimwas also not preserved (see People vLewis, 69 AD3d 1232, 1234 [2010]). In any event, such claim is without merit, as therecord clearly reveals that counsel filed pretrial motions on defendant's behalf, vigorouslyrepresented him at a Huntley hearing and negotiated an advantageous plea thatconsiderably reduced defendant's sentencing exposure (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d137, 147 [1981]; People v Miller, 70 AD3d at 1120-1121; People v Fiske, 68 AD3d 1149,1150 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 800 [2010]; People v Miller, 12 AD3d 852, 853 [2004], lv denied 4NY3d 765 [2005]). Notably, defendant stated during the plea colloquy that he had a fullopportunity to speak with counsel and that he was satisfied with counsel's efforts on his behalf.
Finally, defendant's valid waiver of appeal precludes our review of his claim that thesentence was harsh and excessive (see People v Thomas, 71 AD3d at 1233; People v Scitz, 67 AD3d 1251,1252 [2009]).
Peters, J.P., Rose, McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.