| People v Rodriguez |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 06038 [98 AD3d 693] |
| August 22, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Eduardo A. Rodriguez, Also Known as "Lite,"Appellant. |
—[*1] 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 (Greller, J.),rendered September 6, 2011, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in thethird degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, andintelligently entered because the County Court allegedly misinformed him of the potentialsentence that he would receive if he pleaded guilty. The plea minutes reveal that the defendantwas advised by the County Court that the promised prison term would be capped at nine years,with three years of postrelease supervision, provided that the defendant complied with theconditions of his plea agreement. The defendant acknowledged that he understood the terms ofthe promised sentence and the conditions of his plea agreement. At sentencing, after defensecounsel spoke on the defendant's behalf and the defendant made a statement on his own behalf,the County Court imposed a sentence of nine years of imprisonment plus a period of three yearsof postrelease supervision. Contrary to the defendant's contention, an objective reading of theplea agreement demonstrates that its terms were complied with, and the defendant'smisinterpretation of the agreement or his disappointment with his sentence does not suffice as areason for vacating his plea of guilty (see People v Cataldo, 39 NY2d 578, 579-580[1976]; People v Hulsey, 244 AD2d 358, 359 [1997]; People v Martin, 235AD2d 551 [1997]; People v Davis, 161 AD2d 787, 788 [1990]; People v Welch,129 AD2d 752 [1987]).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counselbecause his attorney failed, at sentencing, to argue for a lesser sentence than that imposed isbelied by the record. Furthermore, the defendant is deemed to have been furnished meaningfulrepresentation, since he received an advantageous plea and the record does not cast doubt on theapparent effectiveness of counsel (see People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563, 566 [2000];People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]; People v Moss, 74 AD3d 1360 [2010]; People v Garrett, 68 AD3d 781,782 [2009]; People v Boodhoo, 191 AD2d 448, 449 [1993]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).Rivera, J.P., Eng, Chambers, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.