| People v Ladieu |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 02784 [105 AD3d 1265] |
| April 25, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vGinger L. Ladieu, Appellant. |
—[*1] Andrew J. Wylie, District Attorney, Plattsburgh (Jaime A. Douthat of counsel), forrespondent.
Rose, J.P. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County (McGill,J.), rendered November 4, 2011, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of thecrime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree.
Defendant waived indictment and agreed to be prosecuted by a superior courtinformation charging her with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourthdegree. She pleaded guilty to this charge and waived her right to appeal. She wasthereafter sentenced, in accordance with the plea agreement, to five years in prisonfollowed by two years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.
Initially, upon reviewing the record, we find that defendant's waiver of the right toappeal was invalid given that she was not advised that the waiver was separate anddistinct from the other rights she was relinquishing by pleading guilty (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d248, 256 [2006]; People vKlages, 90 AD3d 1149, 1150 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 925 [2012];People v Mosher, 79 AD3d1272, 1273 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 834 [2011]). However, hercontentions that her guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary or intelligent and that shewas denied the effective assistance of counsel, which caused her to enter a defectiveguilty plea, have not been preserved for our review inasmuch as the record does notreveal that defendant made a [*2]motion to withdraw herplea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v McGowan, 98 AD3d 1192, 1192 [2012]; People v Doe, 95 AD3d1449, 1449 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 995 [2012]). The narrow exceptionto the preservation requirement is inapplicable insofar as defendant did not make anystatements during the plea allocution that negated a material element of the crime orotherwise cast doubt upon her guilt (see People v Doe, 95 AD3d at 1449; People v Burnett, 93 AD3d993, 993 [2012]). Further, defendant's contentions regarding her ineffectiveassistance of counsel claim concern matters largely outside the record that cannot beexamined on direct appeal. Lastly, we are not persuaded by defendant's contention thather sentence is harsh and excessive. She received the sentence agreed to under the termsof the plea agreement, and we find no extraordinary circumstances or any abuse ofdiscretion warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice.
Lahtinen, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.