| People v Davis |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 03661 [95 AD3d 1032] |
| May 8, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Shareiff Davis, Appellant. |
—[*1] William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel),for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Greller,J.), rendered June 3, 2011, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the seconddegree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea ofguilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea allocution to criminalpossession of a weapon in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review (seeCPL 220.60 [3]; 470.05 [2]; People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726 [1995]; People vClaudio, 64 NY2d 858 [1985]; People v Ortiz, 89 AD3d 1113 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d927 [2012]; People v Young, 88AD3d 918 [2011]). Furthermore, the "rare case" exception to the preservation requirementdoes not apply here because the defendant's allocution did not cast significant doubt on his guilt,negate an essential element of the crime, or call into question the voluntariness of his plea(People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; see People v Ortiz, 89 AD3d at1113; People v Young, 88 AD3d at 918). In any event, the facts admitted by thedefendant during his plea allocution were sufficient to support his plea of guilty to criminalpossession of a weapon in the second degree (see Penal Law § 265.00 [15];§ 265.02 [1]; § 265.03 [3]; People v Seeber, 4 NY3d 780, 781 [2005]; People vCavines, 70 NY2d 882, 883 [1987]).
By pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited appellate review of his claims of ineffectiveassistance of counsel that did not directly involve the plea-agreement process (see People vPetgen, 55 NY2d 529, 535 n 3 [1982]; People v Collier, 71 AD3d 909, 910 [2010]; People v Turner, 40 AD3d 1018,1019 [2007]; People v Silent, 37AD3d 625 [2007]). Further, the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance ofcounsel arising from his counsel's failure to challenge the factual sufficiency of his pleaallocution, since any such challenge had little or no chance of success (see People v Ingram, 80 AD3d713, 714 [2011]; People vTerrell, 78 AD3d 865 [2010]; People v Goddard, 72 AD3d 839, 840 [2010]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Hall, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.