| People v Hasenflue |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 06397 [110 AD3d 1108] |
| October 3, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vMichael J. Hasenflue, Appellant. |
—[*1] D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel),for respondent.
Spain, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams,J.), rendered September 27, 2010, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of thecrime of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.
Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree infull satisfaction of an eight-count indictment charging him with criminal possession of aweapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree,menacing in the first degree (two counts), assault in the third degree and endangering thewelfare of a child (three counts). Pursuant to the plea terms, the People agreed not topursue certain additional charges against defendant and County Court committed to aprison sentence of 10 years followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendantwas sentenced as agreed and he now appeals.
Initially, the record does not reflect that defendant preserved his challenge to thevoluntariness and factual sufficiency of his plea by making a motion to withdraw his pleaor vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Borden, 91 AD3d 1124, 1125 [2012], lvdenied 19 NY3d 862 [2012]; People v Davis, 84 AD3d 1645, 1645 [2011], lvdenied 17 NY3d 815 [2011]). Moreover, the narrow exception to the preservationrequirement was not triggered here, as defendant did not make any statements during theplea colloquy that were inconsistent with his guilt or otherwise called into question thevoluntariness of his plea (see People v Teele, 92 AD3d [*2]972, 972 [2012]; People v Davis, 84 AD3d at1646). Defendant's related claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel islikewise unpreserved for our review and, in any event, the record does not support thisclaim (see People v Borden, 91 AD3d at 1125-1126; People v Gomez, 72 AD3d1337, 1338 [2010]). Finally, defendant's contention that his agreed-upon sentencewas harsh and excessive is unpersuasive given his criminal history and the violent natureof his conduct, which was witnessed by his children (see People v Jackson, 67 AD3d 1067, 1069 [2009], lvdenied 14 NY3d 801 [2010]; People v Milstead, 61 AD3d 1179, 1179 [2009]). Likewiselacking in merit is his claim that fees and surcharges were improperly imposed (see People v Hoti, 12 NY3d742, 743 [2009]; People vOverton, 105 AD3d 1072, 1073 [2013]).
Lahtinen, J.P., Stein and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.