| People v Zimmerman |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 06602 [87 AD3d 1225] |
| September 29, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Zoe A.Zimmerman, Appellant. |
—[*1] D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), forrespondent.
Spain, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.),rendered March 22, 2010, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime ofaggravated driving while intoxicated.
Defendant was charged by indictment with aggravated driving while intoxicated and drivingwhile intoxicated, both class D felony offenses. Following her arraignment, defendant wasinjured when she was hit by a bus and the proceedings were delayed for several months.Ultimately, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to aggravateddriving while intoxicated, with the understanding that she would be sentenced to 2 to 6 years inprison and would have to pay a fine in the amount of $2,000. Defendant was sentenced inaccordance with the plea agreement and she now appeals.
Defendant's argument that her plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent is notpreserved due to her failure to move to withdraw her plea or vacate the judgment of conviction(see People v Board, 75 AD3d833, 833 [2010]; People vBridge, 71 AD3d 1197, 1198 [2010]; People v Urbina, 1 AD3d 717, 717 [2003], lv denied 1NY3d 602 [2004]). If we were to consider this argument, we would find it to be unavailing. Theterms of the plea agreement were clearly set forth and County Court fully advised defendant ofthe rights she was giving up by [*2]pleading guilty, defendantacknowledged each of these rights and freely admitted her guilt (see People v Board, 75AD3d at 834; People v Mosher, 45AD3d 970, 970-971 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 814 [2008]).
Defendant's contention that she was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel is alsounpreserved for review and, in any event, the record reflects that defendant was affordedmeaningful representation (see People vHenkel, 37 AD3d 873, 873-874 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 985 [2007];People v Nieves, 302 AD2d 625, 625-626 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 541[2003]). Finally, we discern no abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances that warrantreduction of the agreed-upon sentence (see People v Bridge, 71 AD3d at 1199; Peoplev Urbina, 1 AD3d at 718).
Mercure, J.P., Malone Jr., Kavanagh and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.