| People v Espinal |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 06641 [99 AD3d 435] |
| October 4, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Wander Espinal, Appellant. |
—[*1] Wander Espinal, appellant pro se. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Sean T. Masson of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J., at plea; Bonnie G.Wittner, J., at sentencing), rendered November 10, 2010, convicting defendant of murder in thefirst degree and two counts of conspiracy in the second degree, and sentencing him to anaggregate term of 20 years to life, unanimously affirmed.
Since defendant did not move to withdraw his plea prior to sentencing, and since there isnothing in his plea allocution that would cast doubt on his guilt or otherwise call into questionthe voluntariness of his plea (see People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725 [1995]), the court wasunder no obligation to conduct a sua sponte inquiry into statements he made to the probationofficer preparing the presentence report (see e.g. People v Pantoja, 281 AD2d 245 [1stDept 2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 905 [2001]). In any event, the statements at issue in thepresentence report do not contradict defendant's plea allocution or negate any element of thecrime.
Defendant's pro se ineffective assistance of counsel claim would require a CPL 440.10motion to expand the record (see People v Love, 57 NY2d 998 [1982]). On the existingrecord, to the extent it permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance underthe state and federal standards (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998];People v [*2]Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995];Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]).
We have examined defendant's remaining pro se arguments, and find them to be withoutmerit. Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Saxe, DeGrasse, Freedman and Román, JJ.