| People v Campbell |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 08234 [89 AD3d 1279] |
| November 17, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Phillip C.Campbell, Appellant. |
—[*1] D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), forrespondent.
Garry, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.), renderedApril 20, 2010, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlledsubstance in the first degree.
In September 2009, defendant was arrested for selling over two ounces of cocaine to anundercover police operative. Thereafter, in satisfaction of a two-count indictment, defendant pleadedguilty to one count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree. Pursuant to the pleabargain, defendant was sentenced to a term of eight years, followed by five years of postreleasesupervision. This appeal followed.
We affirm. Initially, in light of defendant's failure to move to withdraw his plea or vacate thejudgment of conviction, his claims that his plea was not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily enteredand that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel are not preserved for our review (see People v Henry, 73 AD3d 1391,1392 [2010]; People v Gomez, 72AD3d 1337, 1338 [2010]; People vGorrell, 63 AD3d 1381, 1381 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 744 [2009]). Further, thenarrow exception to the preservation requirement is not applicable herein as defendant did not makeany statements during the plea allocution that raised any doubt as to his guilt or tended to negate amaterial element of the crime (see People vGantt, 84 AD3d 1642, [*2]1643 [2011]). Althoughdefendant did state that he had taken some prescription antidepressant medication prior to the plea,upon questioning by the court, defendant denied that this impaired his ability to understand theproceedings (see People v Amidon, 79AD3d 1158, 1159 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 741 [2011]; People v Lafoe, 75 AD3d 663,663-664 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 953 [2010]). Defendant's further claim that CountyCourt failed to uphold an alleged promise to consider possible drug programs or alternative sentencingis not supported by the record (see People vChaney, 70 AD3d 1251, 1252 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 748 [2010]).
We reject defendant's contention that his sentence is harsh and excessive. Defendant's determinatesentence was the minimum available upon his conviction of the A-1 felony of criminal sale of acontrolled substance in the first degree (see Penal Law § 70.71 [2] [b] [i]; §220.43), and thus this claim lacks merit (seePeople v Moran, 69 AD3d 1055, 1056 [2010]).
Defendant's remaining arguments, to the extent not specifically addressed above, have beenexamined and found to be unpersuasive.
Spain, J.P., Rose, Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.