| People v Ingram |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 00396 [80 AD3d 713] |
| January 18, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v RashaanIngram, Appellant. |
—[*1] William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Bridget Rahilly Steller of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.),rendered November 25, 2009, convicting him of attempted robbery in the third degree, upon his pleaof guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contentions that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent, and that theplea allocution was factually insufficient, are unpreserved for appellate review since he failed to move towithdraw his plea (see People v Clarke, 93 NY2d 904, 906 [1999]; People v Lopez,71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]; People vDuncan, 78 AD3d 1193 [2010]; People v Villalobos, 71 AD3d 924 [2010]; People v Nowell, 46 AD3d 707[2007]). Furthermore, the defendant's recitation of the facts underlying the crime of attempted robberyin the third degree did not cast significant doubt upon his guilt or otherwise call into question thevoluntariness of the plea (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666). The record reveals that thedefendant's plea was factually sufficient, and was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently(see People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9 [1983]). Furthermore, the defendant's post-plea statementsof innocence made to his probation officer which appear in the presentence investigation report did notwarrant vacatur of his plea (see People v Dixon, 29 NY2d 55, 57 [1971]; People v Morales, 17 AD3d 487[2005]; People v Eaton, 14 AD3d577 [2005]; People v Richardson,13 AD3d 561 [2004]). Notably, after the sentencing court questioned the defendant concerninghis statements to the probation officer, the defendant readily admitted his guilt (see People vJames, 192 AD2d 555, 556 [1993]; People v Figueroa, 146 AD2d 798, 799 [1989]).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel as aconsequence of his attorney's failure to make a motion to withdraw his plea based on his post-pleastatements appearing in the presentence investigation report is without merit. There can be nodeprivation of effective assistance of counsel arising from counsel's failure to make a motion that hadlittle or no chance of success (see People vTerrell, 78 AD3d 865 [2010]; People v Goddard, 72 AD3d 839, 840 [2010]; People v DeHaney, 66 AD3d 1040,1041 [2009]). The defendant has failed to show that defense counsel's performance fell below anobjective standard of reasonableness and that "there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel'sunprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different" (Strickland v [*2]Washington, 466 US 668, 694 [1984]). Furthermore, the recordreveals that the defendant received an advantageous plea, and nothing in the record casts doubt on theeffectiveness of counsel (see People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]; People vBaldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; People v Hughes, 62 AD3d 1026 [2009]; People v McKenzie, 4 AD3d 437, 438[2004]; People v Boodhoo, 191 AD2d 448, 449 [1993]). Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Belen andCohen, JJ., concur.