| People v Martinez |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 08598 [78 AD3d 966] |
| November 16, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Joseph Martinez, Appellant. |
—[*1] William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel),for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.),rendered February 20, 2007, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, upon his plea ofguilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his plea was not voluntary because it was coerced isunpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw his plea on that basis(see CPL 220.60 [3]; 440.10, 470.05 [2]; People v Santiago, 71 AD3d 703, 704 [2010]; People v Mitchell, 69 AD3d 883[2010]; People v Bolton, 63 AD3d1087 [2009]), and nothing that occurred during his allocution called into question thevoluntariness of his plea (see People vSeeber, 4 NY3d 780, 781 [2005]). In any event, the defendant acknowledged under oathduring the plea proceeding that no one had threatened, forced, or pressured him into pleadingguilty, which belies his present claim of coercion (see People v Perez, 51 AD3d 1043 [2008]; People v Beasley, 50 AD3d 697[2008]; People v Lopez, 34 AD3d599, 599 [2006]).
To the extent that the defendant's contention regarding the effectiveness of his attorneyinvolves matter dehors the record, it may not be reviewed on direct appeal (see People v Moss, 74 AD3d 1360[2010]; People v Moss, 70 AD3d862 [2010]; People v Vasquez,40 AD3d 1134, 1135 [2007]). Insofar as we are able to review the defendant's conclusoryclaim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we find that it is belied by his statements during theplea proceedings (see People vMullen, 77 AD3d 686 [2d Dept 2010]; People v Gedin, 46 AD3d 701 [2007]; People v Taylor, 17 AD3d 491[2005]; People v Carter, 304 AD2d 771, 772 [2003]).
Since the defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive the sentencewhich was thereafter actually imposed, he has no basis now to complain that the sentence wasexcessive (see People vHollingsworth, 74 AD3d 1359, 1360 [2010]; People v Flakes, 240 AD2d 428,429 [1997]; People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816 [1984]). Fisher, J.P., Dillon, Balkin,Chambers and Sgroi, JJ., concur.