| People v Kulmatycski |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 02902 [83 AD3d 734] |
| April 5, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Robert Kulmatycski, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Michael Blakey of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (R. Doyle,J.), rendered May, 27, 2008, convicting him of driving while intoxicated as a felony, aggravatedunlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree, unlawful fleeing of a police officer ina motor vehicle in the third degree, resisting arrest, reckless driving in violation of Vehicle andTraffic Law § 1212, and speeding, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not voluntary is unpreserved forappellate review, since he did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise raise the issue beforethe Supreme Court (see People v Clarke, 93 NY2d 904, 906 [1999]; People vBell, 47 NY2d 839, 840 [1979]; People v Mullen, 77 AD3d 686, 686 [2010]; People v Bolton, 63 AD3d 1087[2009]; People v Perez, 51 AD3d1043 [2008]; People v Scoca,38 AD3d 801 [2007]). In any event, nothing that occurred during his allocution called intoquestion the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Seeber, 4 NY3d 780, 781-782 [2005]; People v Martinez, 78 AD3d 966,967 [2010]), and the record reflects that it was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (seePeople v Garcia, 92 NY2d 869, 870 [1998]; People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536,543 [1993]; People v Perry, 60AD3d 974 [2009]).
To the extent that the defendant's contentions regarding the effectiveness of his counselinvolve matter dehors the record, they may not be reviewed on direct appeal (see People v Moss, 74 AD3d1360, 1360-1361 [2010]; People vBravo, 72 AD3d 697, 698 [2010]). Insofar as we are able to review the defendant'sclaim of ineffective assistance of counsel, he received an advantageous plea and nothing in therecord casts doubt on the effectiveness of counsel (see People v Moss, 74 AD3d at1360-1361; People v Rossetti, 55AD3d 637, 638 [2008]; People vHughes, 62 AD3d 1026, 1026-1027 [2009]; People v Boodhoo, 191 AD2d 448,448 [1993]).
Furthermore, "[s]ince the defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he wouldreceive the sentence which was thereafter actually imposed, he has no basis to now complain thathis sentence was excessive" (People vMejia, 6 AD3d 630 [2004]; seePeople v Nimerofsky, 78 AD3d 735, [*2]736 [2010]; People v De Alvarez, 59 AD3d732, 733 [2009]; People vFanelli, 8 AD3d 296 [2004]; People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816, 817 [1984]).
The defendant's remaining contentions in his pro se supplemental brief were forfeited by hisplea of guilty. Skelos, J.P., Leventhal, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.