| People v Henson |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 05187 [96 AD3d 1076] |
| June 27, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v BruceHenson, Appellant. |
—[*1]
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.),rendered March 10, 2009, 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.
The defendant's challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea allocution is unpreserved forappellate review (see CPL 220.60 [3]; 470.05 [2]; People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725,726 [1995]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]), and the "rare case" exception tothe preservation requirement does not apply here because the defendant's allocution did not castsignificant doubt on his guilt, negate an essential element of the crime, or call into question thevoluntariness of his plea (People vMcNair, 13 NY3d 821, 822 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]; People vLopez, 71 NY2d at 666; People vYoung, 88 AD3d 918, 918 [2011]). In any event, the facts admitted by the defendantduring his plea allocution were sufficient to support his plea of guilty (see People v Seeber, 4 NY3d 780,781 [2005]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666 n 2).
By pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited appellate review of any claim of ineffectiveassistance of counsel that did not directly involve the negotiation of his plea of guilty (seePeople v Petgen, 55 NY2d 529, 535 n 3 [1982]; People v Sorino, 82 AD3d 911 [2011]; People v Collier, 71 AD3d 909,910 [2010]; People v Turner, 40AD3d 1018, 1019 [2007]). To the extent that the defendant is claiming that the validity ofthe plea was affected by his counsel's ineffectiveness, this contention is without merit (seeStrickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 694 [1984]; People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397,404-405 [1995]). Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Belen and Austin, JJ., concur.