| People v Keaton |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 07525 [122 AD3d 954] |
| November 6, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vLamont Keaton, Appellant. |
Brent R. Stack, Valatie, for appellant.
D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel),for respondent.
Egan Jr., J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams,J.), rendered September 11, 2012, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of thecrime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.
In satisfaction of a four-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal saleof a controlled substance in the third degree. The People recommended that defendant, asecond felony offender, be sentenced to a prison term of six years to be followed by threeyears of postrelease supervision. County Court ultimately imposed the recommendedsentence, and defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Defendant contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counselbut, as he concedes, he did not preserve that issue by way of an appropriatepostallocution motion (seePeople v Kerwin, 117 AD3d 1097, 1097-1098 [2014]). In any case, defensecounsel entered into a stipulation in lieu of motions that provided for discovery andvarious pretrial hearings, and there is no indication that proceeding by that route affecteddefendant's decision to plead guilty (see People v Trombley, 91 AD3d 1197, 1200-1201 [2012],lv denied 21 NY3d 914 [2013]). Defense counsel went on to negotiate a pleaagreement that significantly limited defendant's sentencing exposure, and defendantacknowledged during the plea colloquy that he had [*2]adequately discussed the terms of that agreement withcounsel and was satisfied with counsel's performance. Accordingly, were this issuepreserved, we would find that defendant received meaningful representation (see People v Jones, 114 AD3d1080, 1081-1082 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 961 [2014]; People v Shurock, 83 AD3d1342, 1344 [2011]). Finally, to the extent that defendant contends that counsel failedto adequately meet with him prior to the plea colloquy, this claim implicates mattersoutside of the record and, as such, is more properly the subject of a CPL article 440motion (see People vStroman, 106 AD3d 1268, 1271 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1046[2013]).
Peters, P.J., Stein, Rose and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.