People v Carr
2011 NY Slip Op 08603 [89 AD3d 1033]
November 22, 2011
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, January 4th, 2012


The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
AlexanderR. Carr, Appellant.

[*1]Salvatore C. Adamo, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Joan H. McCarthy of counsel), forrespondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.),rendered August 3, 2010, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance inthe third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent isunpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw the plea on that ground(see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726 [1995]; People vLopez, 71 NY2d 662 [1988]; People v Hernandez-Bautista, 89 AD3d 749 [2011]; People v Cooper, 88 AD3d 1009[2011]; People v Shaffer, 81 AD3d989 [2011]; People v Trent, 74AD3d 1370 [2010]). In any event, the record demonstrates that the defendant's plea of guilty wasentered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently (see People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9 [1983]).

To the extent that the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is reviewable on directappeal, his contention is without merit (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998];People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Contrary to the defendant's contention, hisattorney made a pretrial omnibus motion on his behalf and negotiated an advantageous plea agreementthat substantially limited his exposure to imprisonment (see People v Browning, 44 AD3d 1067, 1067-1068 [2007]; People v Reels, 17 AD3d 488, 489[2005]; People v Torres, 302 AD2d 481 [2003]). Accordingly, defense counsel providedmeaningful representation.

Since the defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive the sentence whichwas thereafter actually imposed, he has no basis now to complain that the sentence was excessive (see People v Bunn, 79 AD3d 1143[2010]; People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816 [1984]). Rivera, J.P., Florio, Eng, Hall and Cohen,JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.