| People v Harris |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 02081 [82 AD3d 1449] |
| March 24, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eric T. Harris,Appellant. |
—[*1] Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton (Joann Rose Parry of counsel), forrespondent.
Egan Jr., J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.),rendered August 26, 2009, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of assault inthe second degree and attempted grand larceny in the third degree.
Defendant waived indictment, pleaded guilty to a superior court information charging himwith assault in the second degree and was sentenced as a second felony offender to three years inprison followed by five years of postrelease supervision. In conjunction therewith, and insatisfaction of a four-count indictment, defendant also pleaded guilty to attempted grand larcenyin the third degree and was sentenced as a second felony offender to the agreed-upon prison termof 1½ to 3 years. Defendant, who was represented by one assigned counsel on the larcenycharge and another assigned counsel on the assault charge, now appeals, contending that aconflict of interest deprived him of the effective assistance of counsel.
We affirm. Defendant's conflict-based ineffective assistance of counsel claim is unpreservedfor our review due to his failure to move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment ofconviction (see People v Bigwarfe,35 AD3d 904, 905 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 878 [2007]; see also People v Bolden, 78 AD3d1419, 1420 [2010]; People vMiller, 70 AD3d 1120, 1121 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 890 [2010]). To theextent defendant challenges the factual sufficiency of his plea, that issue is similarly unpreservedfor our review in light of his [*2]failure to move to withdraw hisplea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Lopez, 74 AD3d 1498, 1498-1499 [2010]; People v Bethel, 69 AD3d 1126,1127 [2010]; People v Fiske, 68AD3d 1149, 1150 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 800 [2010]). Moreover, the narrowexception to the preservation requirement is not triggered where, as here, "defendant did notmake any statements during his plea allocution that cast doubt upon his guilt or the voluntarinessof his plea" (People v Bethel, 69 AD3d at 1127; see People v Lopez, 74 AD3d at1499).
Mercure, J.P., Rose and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.