| People v Sanders |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 05446 [74 AD3d 1896] |
| June 18, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v MatthewSanders, Appellant. |
—[*1] John C. Tunney, Special District Attorney, Bath, for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Livingston County Court (Dennis S. Cohen, J.), renderedMay 1, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery inthe second degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty ofattempted robbery in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.10 [1]),defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based on defense counsel'sfailure to secure a more favorable sentence. To the extent that defendant's contention survivesthe plea (see People v Gross, 50AD3d 1577 [2008]), it is lacking in merit (see generally People v Ford, 86 NY2d397, 404 [1995]). "Defense counsel negotiated 'an advantageous plea and nothing in the recordcasts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel' " (Gross, 50 AD3d 1577, quotingFord, 86 NY2d at 404).
We reject the further contention of defendant that County Court erred in determining that hevoluntarily waived his Miranda rights prior to making incriminating statements to thepolice and thus erred in refusing to suppress those statements. The court's determination isentitled to deference and will not be disturbed where it is supported by the record (see People v McAvoy, 70 AD3d1467 [2010]; see generally People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). Here, therecord of the suppression hearing establishes that a detective read defendant his Mirandarights from a standard Miranda waiver form and defendant thereafter stated that heunderstood his rights and was willing to speak with the police.
Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche,Sconiers, Green and Gorski, JJ.