| People v Ramos |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 07370 [77 AD3d 773] |
| October 12, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JasonRamos, Appellant. |
—[*1] Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Maria I. Wager, Richard Longworth Hecht,and Anthony J. Servino of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Molea, J.),rendered July 1, 2009, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, andimposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant moved to withdraw his plea of guilty on the ground that the plea was not knowing,voluntary, and intelligent because he felt compelled to take the plea out of fear that his attorney wouldbe forced to withdraw from the case and therefore would not be able to represent him at trial. Thedefendant also claimed that his mental state was impaired due to insufficient medication for his bipolardisorder, and that his understanding was limited due to borderline intelligence. The defendant did notsubmit an affidavit or medical evidence in support of these allegations, which were set forth in hisattorney's affirmation.
The decision whether to permit a defendant to withdraw a plea of guilty is a matter within the sounddiscretion of the court and will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion (seeCPL 220.60 [3]; People v Selikoff, 35 NY2d 227, 241 [1974], cert denied 419US 1122 [1975]; People v Smith, 54AD3d 879, 879-880 [2008]; People vDrago, 50 AD3d 920 [2008]). Here, the County Court providently exercised its discretion indenying the defendant's motion. The defendant's contentions of coercion and pressure were properlyrejected as unsupported by the record (see People v Fontana, 267 AD2d 398, 399 [1999];People v Sears, 204 AD2d 578 [1994]). Further, the defendant's conclusory assertionsregarding his mental state were belied by his concession that he received his medication at the regularlyscheduled time, and by the County Court's observations of his demeanor and his coherent andunequivocal responses during the comprehensive plea allocution (see People v Martinez, 33 AD3d 631, 632 [2006]; People v Loria, 12 AD3d 1125[2004]; People v Pryor, 11 AD3d565 [2004]). Thus, the record establishes that the defendant's plea of guilty and his waiver of theright to appeal were knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256[2006]; People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]).
"The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his claim that hewas deprived of his right to effective assistance of counsel, except to the extent that the allegedineffective assistance may have affected the voluntariness of his plea" (People v Drago, 50AD3d at 920; see People v Demosthene,2 AD3d 874 [2003]). Therefore, review of the defendant's claim that his counsel was ineffectiveduring the suppression hearing is precluded by his valid waiver of appeal. Insofar as the defendantcontends that his counsel's conduct affected the voluntariness of his plea, to the extent this claim may bereviewed on the record before us, we find that counsel provided the defendant with meaningfulrepresentation (see People v Caban, 5NY3d 143, 152 [2005]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). To the extent thatthe defendant's contention rests on matter dehors the record, it is not reviewable on direct appeal(see People v Drago, 50 AD3d at 920; People v DeLuca, 45 AD3d 777 [2007]).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit. Skelos, J.P., Angiolillo, Hall and Lott, JJ., concur.