| People v Quinn |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 00788 [124 AD3d 916] |
| January 28, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Richard N. Quinn, Appellant. |
Lisa H. Blitman, New York, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se.
David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Middletown, N.Y. (Elizabeth L. Schulz, RobertMiddlemiss, Seth B. Altman, and Andrew R. Kass of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered May 9, 2012, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, petitlarceny, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon his plea ofguilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that he was improperly sentenced as a second felonyoffender is without merit. The People sustained their burden of proving, beyond areasonable doubt, that the defendant previously was convicted of a felony upon which hisadjudication as a second felony offender was based (see CPL 400.21 [7];People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 16 [1983]; People v Glover, 69 AD3d 877, 878 [2010]; People v Williams, 38 AD3d576, 577 [2007]; People vMyron, 28 AD3d 681, 684 [2006]). The defendant's conclusory allegationsmade at the sentencing proceeding, and his legal arguments made in support of his pro semotion asserting that his prior 2011 felony conviction was unconstitutionally obtained,were insufficient to overcome the presumptions of the validity and regularity of the priorfelony conviction (see People v Myron, 28 AD3d at 684; People v Allen, 4 AD3d479, 480 [2004]).
Furthermore, the defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel basedupon counsel's failure to join in his pro se motion challenging the constitutionality of theprior felony conviction. Counsel cannot be held ineffective for failing to make a motionor argument that has little or no chance of success (see People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]; People v Stultz, 2 NY3d277, 287 [2004]; People vWatts, 91 AD3d 678, 679 [2012]; People v Serrano, 81 AD3d 753, 754 [2011]; People v Sanabria, 52 AD3d743, 744-745 [2008]).
By pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited his right to appellate review of hiscontention that he should be released from custody because the People failed to complywith CPL 180.80 (see People v Hansen, 95 NY2d 227, 230 [2000]; People vTaylor, 65 NY2d 1, 5 [1985]; People v Thomas, 53 NY2d 338, 342-345[1981]; People v Fagan, 53AD3d 983, 984 [2008]; People v Henderson, 269 AD2d 404 [2000]). Dillon,J.P., Dickerson, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.