| People v Scivolette |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 00241 [80 AD3d 630] |
| January 11, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v GeorgeScivolette, Appellant. |
—[*1] William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Joan H. McCarthy of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.),rendered March 23, 2010, convicting him of criminal contempt in the first degree, upon his plea ofguilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the County Court coerced him into pleading guilty is unpreservedfor appellate review (see People v Dash,74 AD3d 1859, 1859-1860 [2010]; People v Bolton, 63 AD3d 1087 [2009]). In any event, the defendant'scontention is unsupported by the record (seePeople v Bravo, 72 AD3d 697, 698 [2010]; People v Grant, 61 AD3d 177, 182-183 [2009]; People v Denson, 40 AD3d 1266[2007]).
The defendant's challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea allocution is unpreserved forappellate review (see People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726 [1995]; People v Williams, 70 AD3d 1059,1060 [2010]; People v Kelly, 50 AD3d921 [2008]). Moreover, the "rare case" (People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988])exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here because the defendant's allocution didnot clearly cast significant doubt on his guilt, negate an essential element of the crime, or call intoquestion the voluntariness of the plea (seePeople v Nash, 38 AD3d 684 [2007]). In any event, the facts admitted by the defendant inhis allocution were sufficient to support his plea of guilty (see People v Seeber, 4 NY3d 780, 781 [2005]; People v Colston, 68 AD3d 1130,1131 [2009]; People v Carter, 7 AD3d389 [2004]).
"[B]y pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel to theextent that they do not directly involve the bargaining process" (People v Rodriguez-Ovalles, 74 AD3d 1368, 1368-1369 [2010]; see People v Perazzo, 65 AD3d 1058,1059 [2009]). To the extent that the claims can be reviewed, and involve an alleged effect on thevoluntariness of his plea of guilty, the defendant was afforded meaningful representation (see Peoplev Rodriguez-Ovalles, 74 AD3d at 1369).
"[S]ince the defendant received the sentence for which he bargained, he has no basis to complainthat the sentence imposed was excessive" (People v Gheradi, 68 AD3d 892, 893 [2009]; see People vKazepis, 101 AD2d 816 [1984]). Covello, J.P., Florio, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.