| People v Santiago |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 04078 [118 AD3d 1032] |
| June 5, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1] (June 5, 2014)
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vRaul Santiago, Appellant. |
Jack H. Weiner, Chatham, for appellant.
Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton (Joann Rose Parry of counsel), forrespondent.
Egan Jr., J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith,J.), rendered March 15, 2012, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimeof attempted rape in the first degree.
Defendant was indicted and charged in November 2011 with burglary in the seconddegree and attempted rape in the first degree. Prior thereto—and having previouslybeen indicted for failing to register as a sex offender—defendant rejected an offerto plead guilty to sexual abuse in the first degree in exchange for a prison sentence ofthree years followed by eight years of postrelease supervision to resolve all pendingcharges. Subsequently, defendant pleaded guilty to attempted rape in the first degree insatisfaction of the two indictments, as well as a violation of conditional discharge, andthereafter was sentenced as a second felony offender to a negotiated term of five years inprison followed by eight years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that he received ineffectiveassistance of counsel by virtue of defense counsel's failure to inform him of the initialplea offer or to recommend that he accept the offer. Such argument, however, isunpreserved for our review absent evidence of an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Beach, 115 AD3d1117, 1118 [2014]; Peoplev Trombley, 115 AD3d 1114, 1114 [2014]). Additionally, in the [*2]absence of any statements during the plea allocution thatwould cast doubt upon defendant's guilt, the narrow exception to the preservationrequirement is inapplicable (seePeople v Ladieu, 105 AD3d 1265, 1265-1266 [2013], lv denied 21NY3d 1017 [2013]; People vWhite, 104 AD3d 1056, 1056 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1021 [2013]).Finally, to the extent that defendant's claim involves matters outside the record, thisargument is more properly the subject of a CPL article 440 motion (see People v Morey, 110 AD3d1378, 1379-1380 [2013]; People v Veras, 103 AD3d 984, 985 [2013], lvdenied 21 NY3d 947 [2013]).
Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Rose and Lynch, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.