| People v Sorino |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 01871 [82 AD3d 911] |
| March 8, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Anthony Sorino, Appellant. |
—[*1] Francis D. Phillips II, District Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Andrew R. Kass of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Freehill, J.),rendered December 21, 2009, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea ofguilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
By pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited appellate review of any claim of ineffectiveassistance of counsel that did not directly involve the negotiation of the plea (see People vPetgen, 55 NY2d 529, 535 n 3 [1982]; People v Collier, 71 AD3d 909, 910 [2010]; People v Curry, 56 AD3d 489[2008]; People v Scalercio, 10AD3d 697 [2004]). To the extent that the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance ofcounsel does not relate to the voluntariness of the plea, the defendant's valid and unrestrictedwaiver of his right to appeal foreclosed appellate review of that claim (see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737,738 [2006]; People v Aguayo, 73AD3d 938, 939 [2010]; People vTaubenkraut, 48 AD3d 598 [2008]). To the extent that the defendant is claiming that hiscounsel was ineffective such that the voluntariners of his plea was affected, this contention iswithout merit (see Hill v Lockhart, 474 US 52, 58-59 [1985]; Strickland vWashington, 466 US 668, 687 [1984]; People v McDonald, 1 NY3d 109, 113-115 [2003]).
The defendant's waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his claim that hissentence was excessive (see People vLopez, 6 NY3d 248 [2006]; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733 [1998]). Skelos,J.P., Covello, Eng, Chambers and Sgroi, JJ., concur.