| People v Harris |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 09534 [79 AD3d 1069] |
| December 21, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v AudraHarris, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano and Sharon Y.Brodt of counsel; Lorrie A. Zinno on the brief), for respondent.
Appeals by the defendant from four judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Grosso, J.),all rendered September 23, 2008, convicting her of (1) burglary in the second degree and criminalcontempt in the first degree under indictment No. 2887/07, (2) identity theft in the third degree underindictment No. 92/08, (3) burglary in the third degree under superior court information No. 1528/08,and (4) falsely reporting an incident in the second degree under superior court information No.1529/08, upon her pleas of guilty, and sentencing her to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 10 yearswith 5 years of postrelease supervision on the burglary in the second degree conviction, 1 to 3 years onthe criminal contempt in the first degree conviction, 1 year on the identity theft in the third degreeconviction, 2
Ordered that the judgments rendered under indictment No. 92/08 and superior court informationNo. 1529/08 are affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment rendered under indictment No. 2887/07 is modified, on the facts and asa matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the term of imprisonment imposed on theconviction of burglary in the second degree from 10 years to 5 years; as so modified, the judgmentrendered under indictment No. 2887/07 is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment rendered under superior court information No. 1528/08 is modified, asa matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the term of imprisonment imposed on theconviction of burglary in the third degree from 2
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly imposed an enhancedsentence based on her violation of the plea agreements (see People v Knowlden, 43 AD3d 960 [2007]).[*2]
The defendant's contention, raised in her supplemental pro sebrief, that her pleas were not knowing and voluntary, is unpreserved for appellate review since shefailed to move to withdraw her pleas (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Johnson, 73 AD3d 951[2010]). In any event, the record of the plea proceeding establishes that the pleas were knowing andvoluntary (see People v Patel, 74 AD3d1098, 1099 [2010]).
By pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited her claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, raised inher supplemental pro se brief, to the extent that it does not directly involve the plea bargaining process(see People v Perazzo, 65 AD3d1058 [2009]). Furthermore, the defendant's claim is based partially on matter dehors the record,which cannot be reviewed on direct appeal (see People v Patel, 74 AD3d at 1099; People v Haynes, 70 AD3d 718, 719[2010]). To the extent that the claim can be reviewed on this appeal, the record reveals that both theattorney who represented the defendant during the plea proceeding and the attorney who representedthe defendant at sentencing provided her with effective assistance (see People v Benevento, 91NY2d 708, 712 [1998]).
Under the circumstances of this case, the sentences imposed were excessive to the extent indicatedherein.
The defendant's remaining contentions, raised in her supplemental pro se brief, are without merit(see People v Hansen, 95 NY2d 227 [2000]). Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal and Hall, JJ.,concur.