| People v Amanze |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 06853 [87 AD3d 1159] |
| September 27, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Antoine Amanze, Also Known as Amanze Antoine,Appellant. |
—[*1] Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Laurie Sapakoff, Lois Cullen Valerio,and Richard Longworth Hecht of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Cacace,J.), rendered February 24, 2010, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the seconddegree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
"A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty rests within the sound discretion of the County Court"(People v McGhee, 62 AD3d1027 [2009]; see People vSeeber, 4 NY3d 780 [2005]; People v Pooler, 58 AD3d 757 [2009]; People v Drago, 50 AD3d 920[2008]; People v Mann, 32 AD3d865 [2006]; People vKucharczyk, 15 AD3d 595 [2005]). The County Court's "determination generally willnot be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion" (People v McGhee, 62AD3d at 1027; see People v Pooler, 58 AD3d at 757; People v DeLeon, 40 AD3d 1008 [2007]). A number of thedefendant's contentions in connection with his claim that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily,or intelligently made are based on matter dehors the record and, thus, cannot be reviewed ondirect appeal (see People v Vasquez,40 AD3d 1134, 1135 [2007]). To the extent that the defendant's claim can be reviewed, therecord establishes that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered hisnegotiated plea of guilty (see generallyPeople v Catu, 4 NY3d 242, 244-245 [2005]; People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d536, 543 [1993]; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 16-17 [1983]; People v Rhodes, 62 AD3d 815,816 [2009]). Accordingly, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying thedefendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty.
The defendant's claim that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, whichallegedly rendered his plea involuntary, is also based principally on matter dehors the record,which cannot be reviewed on direct appeal (see People v Kent, 79 AD3d 52, 72 [2010], lv granted 17NY3d 797 [2011]; People vBermejo, 77 AD3d 965, 966 [2010]; People v Tillman, 74 AD3d 1251 [2010]; People v Surin, 70 AD3d 731, 732[2010]). To the extent that the defendant's claim can be reviewed, the defendant's attorneyassisted him in obtaining a favorable plea agreement, and there is nothing in the record whichcasts doubt on counsel's effectiveness (see People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397 [1995]; People v Jackson, 56 AD3d 492,493 [2008]; People v Charpentier,44 AD3d 680, 681 [2007]; People vBrooks, 36 AD3d 929, 930 [2007]; People v Grimes, 35 AD3d 882, 883 [2006]).[*2]
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.Dillon, J.P., Angiolillo, Dickerson and Cohen, JJ., concur.