| People v White |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 05591 [85 AD3d 1493] |
| June 30, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v George P.White, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Gerald A. Dwyer of counsel), forrespondent.
Malone Jr., J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County(Giardino, J.), rendered May 25, 2010, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimeof attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.
Defendant was indicted on charges of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree(two counts), attempted assault in the first degree, attempted murder in the second degree,reckless endangerment in the first degree, perjury in the first degree and criminal possession of aweapon in the third degree. He subsequently pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of attemptedcriminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, in full satisfaction of the charges, andwaived his right to appeal. Prior to sentencing, defendant moved to withdraw his plea. CountyCourt denied the motion and sentenced him, as a second felony offender, to the agreed-upon termof imprisonment of five years, to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendantappeals.
Defendant contends that his plea was involuntarily entered due to a lack of understandingthat a requirement of the plea agreement was that he cooperate with the People by answeringquestions concerning an unrelated matter. Although this contention survives his waiver of theright to appeal and was preserved by his motion to withdraw his plea (see People v [*2]Ortiz, 69 AD3d 966, 967 [2010]), it is neverthelesswithout merit. A review of the plea colloquy reveals that defendant was fully aware of thecooperation component of the plea agreement and expressed his understanding of it prior topleading guilty. Inasmuch as the record reflects that defendant understood the nature andconsequences of his plea, including the rights he was relinquishing, attested that he was not underthe influence of any medications and was not coerced into pleading guilty and thereafter freelyadmitted his guilt, we find that defendant's plea was knowing, voluntary and intelligent (see People v Morrishaw, 56 AD3d895, 896 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 761 [2009]; People v Wyant, 47 AD3d 1068, 1069 [2008], lv denied 10NY3d 873 [2008]). Finally, although defendant's claim that he was deprived of the effectiveassistance of counsel, insofar as it affects the voluntariness of his plea, is properly before us, wefind it unpersuasive. The record demonstrates that defendant was afforded meaningfulrepresentation in that he " 'receive[d] an advantageous plea and nothing in the record casts doubton the apparent effectiveness of counsel' " (People v Singletary, 51 AD3d 1334, 1335 [2008], lv denied11 NY3d 741 [2008], quoting People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]).
Peters, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.