| People v Soria |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 07137 [99 AD3d 1027] |
| October 24, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Aurelio Soria, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Marcia R. Kucera of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.),rendered January 24, 2011, convicting him of rape in the second degree and endangering thewelfare of a child, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his claims that the plea of guilty wasnot knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered, and that the County Court failed to advisehim about the deportation consequences of his plea (see CPL 220.60 [3]; 470.05 [2];People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726 [1995]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665[1988]; People v Henson, 96 AD3d1076 [2012]; People vRamnaraine, 92 AD3d 809 [2012]). Furthermore, the "rare case" exception to thepreservation 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]; see People vLopez, 71 NY2d at 666; People vYoung, 88 AD3d 918, 918 [2011]). In any event, the defendant's claims are belied by therecord, and the defendant's post-plea statements of innocence made to his probation officer thatappear in the presentence investigation report do not warrant vacatur of his plea (see People vDixon, 29 NY2d 55, 57 [1971]; People v Gibson, 95 AD3d 1033, 1033-1034 [2012], lvdenied 19 NY3d 996 [2012]; Peoplev Ingram, 80 AD3d 713, 714 [2011]; People v Morales, 17 AD3d 487 [2005]).
By pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited appellate review of his claims of ineffectiveassistance of counsel that did not directly involve the plea bargaining process (see People vPetgen, 55 NY2d 529, 535 n 3 [1982]; People v Davis, 95 AD3d 1032, 1033 [2012], lv denied 19NY3d 972 [2012]; People v Collier,71 AD3d 909, 910 [2010]; People vTurner, 40 AD3d 1018, 1019 [2007]). Furthermore, the defendant's valid waiver of theright to appeal (see People v Ramos,7 NY3d 737 [2006]; People v Muniz, 91 NY2d 570 [1998]; People vCallahan, 80 NY2d 273 [1992]) precludes appellate review of his claims of ineffectiveassistance of counsel that did not affect the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Duah, 91 AD3d 884[2012]; People v Williams, 84AD3d 1417, 1418 [2011]; People vYarborough, 83 AD3d 875 [2011]). To the extent that the defendant contends thatineffective assistance of counsel affected the voluntariness [*2]ofhis plea, the record demonstrates that the defendant received an advantageous plea, and nothingin the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel (see Strickland vWashington, 466 US 668, 694 [1984]; People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563, 566 [2000];People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]; People v Yarborough, 83 AD3d at 875;People v Moss, 74 AD3d 1360[2010]). Moreover, the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is refuted by therecord of the plea proceeding, in which he acknowledged that he had enough time to discuss thematter with his attorney and was satisfied with his attorney's advice and legal services (see People v Maye, 64 AD3d 617[2009]; People v Harris, 222 AD2d 522, 523 [1995]; People v Richardson, 214AD2d 624, 625 [1995]). Rivera, J.P., Florio, Dickerson, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.