| People v Brown |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 02950 [116 AD3d 1062] |
| April 30, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Ricky Brown, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas P. Zugibe, District Attorney, New City, N.Y. (Itamar J. Yeger of counsel),for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County(Nelson, J.), rendered August 21, 2012, convicting him of attempted robbery in thesecond degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his contentionthat the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]; People v Edmunson, 109AD3d 621 [2013]).
The defendant's contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that the CountyCourt lacked authority to increase the postrelease supervision component of his sentencefrom three years to five years is without merit. The court increased the postreleasesupervision component because the original sentence would have been illegal (seePenal Law § 70.45 [3]). Moreover, the court gave the defendant the option ofeither accepting the increased postrelease supervision or of withdrawing his plea ofguilty and going to trial (seePeople v Rubendall, 4 AD3d 13, 17 [2004]).
The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of hiscontention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that he was deprived of the effectiveassistance of counsel in the County Court, except to the extent that the alleged ineffectiveassistance affected the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Young, 97 AD3d 771 [2012]). Thedefendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to the plea negotiationis based, in part, upon matter outside the record and cannot be resolved without referenceto matter outside the record. Therefore, the appropriate vehicle for review of this claim isa motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 (see People v Maxwell, 89 AD3d 1108, 1109 [2011]).
The defendant's contention, raised pro se, that his appellate counsel is ineffective, is[*2]not reviewable on direct appeal. The appropriateavenue for the defendant to raise the issue of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel isto seek a writ of error coram nobis in this Court (see People v Brun, 15 NY3d 875, 876 [2010]).
The defendant's contentions with respect to his conviction of criminal trespass in thesecond degree are not properly before this Court, because the defendant's appeal does notcover the indictment relating to that offense. Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Cohen,Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.