| People v Stickey |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 01129 [114 AD3d 532] |
| February 18, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Kristi Stickey, Also Known as Kristi Stickney,Appellant. |
—[*1] Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Christopher P. Marinelli ofcounsel), for respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J.), renderedFebruary 29, 2012, convicting defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of criminal possessionof a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing her to a term of 2½years, unanimously affirmed.
Under the particular circumstances of the case, the court properly exercised itsdiscretion when it declined to adjourn the sentencing, which had already been adjournedtwice, for the purpose of having defendant's retained attorney of record appear instead ofhis law partner. The partner had actually represented defendant for most purposes,including the Supreme Court arraignment, the plea negotiations, and the pleaproceedings, and he was plainly familiar with the case. The only issue that arose atsentencing was whether defendant's postplea conduct had disqualified her for a morelenient disposition than the agreed-upon sentence. The partner capably representeddefendant in this regard, and the court properly concluded that defendant had violated theconditions of her plea. The prison sentence to be imposed in the event that defendantviolated these conditions had been negotiated, and neither the partner nor the attorney ofrecord would have had any reason or basis for requesting further leniency (see People v Guerrero, 27AD3d 386, 387 [1st Dept 2006]).
Defendant nevertheless asserts that the court's denial of an adjournment deprived herof effective assistance of counsel. She alleges that the partner was inadequately preparedfor the sentencing proceeding and that the attorney of record had additional relevantinformation. These claims are unreviewable on direct appeal because they involvematters not reflected in the record (see People v Krasnovsky, 45 AD3d 446 [1st Dept 2007],lv denied 10 NY3d 767 [2008]). Accordingly, since defendant has not made aCPL 440.10 motion, the merits of these claims may not be addressed on appeal. In thealternative, to the extent the existing record permits review, we find that defendantreceived effective assistance under the state and federal standards (seePeople v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; Strickland vWashington, 466 US 668 [1984]).
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P.,Andrias, DeGrasse and Clark, JJ.