| People v Yarborough |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 03096 [83 AD3d 875] |
| April 12, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Michael Yarborough, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Karla Lato of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hinrichs,J.), rendered January 22, 2010, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon his plea ofguilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion towithdraw his plea of guilty (see CPL 220.60 [3]). The record supports the SupremeCourt's determination that the defendant's plea was entered knowingly, voluntarily, andintelligently (see People v Scott, 77AD3d 689 [2010]; People vHill, 9 NY3d 189, 191 [2007], cert denied 553 US 1048 [2008]; People vFiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]). Further, although the defendant claims, inter alia,that he was coerced into pleading guilty, his claims are belied by the record (see People v Burgess, 81 AD3d969 [2011]; People v Scott, 77AD3d 689 [2010]; People vAguayo, 73 AD3d 938, 939 [2010]).
"[T]he defendant's waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his contention that hewas denied the effective assistance of counsel, except to the extent that the alleged ineffectiveassistance affected the voluntariness of his plea" (People v Gedin, 46 AD3d 701, 701 [2007]; see People vAguayo, 73 AD3d at 939). To the extent the defendant contends that his counsel wasineffective such that the voluntariness of his plea was affected, the record reveals that thedefendant received an advantageous plea, and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparenteffectiveness of counsel (see People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]; People vAguayo, 73 AD3d at 939).
Since the defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive the sentencewhich was thereafter actually imposed, he has no basis to now complain that the sentence wasexcessive (see People v De Alvarez,59 AD3d 732, 733 [2009]; People vFanelli, 8 AD3d 296 [2004]). Mastro, J.P., Florio, Dickerson, Belen and Lott, JJ.,concur.