| People v Patrick |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 01198 [125 AD3d 1053] |
| February 11, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vLionel N. Patrick, Appellant. |
Martin J. McGuinness, Saratoga Springs, for appellant, and appellant pro se.
J. Anthony Jordan, District Attorney, Fort Edward (Devin J. Anderson of counsel),for respondent.
Devine, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Washington County(McKeighan, J.), rendered March 15, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guiltyof the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts)and criminal possession of a controlled substance in third degree (two counts).
Defendant was charged in an indictment with two counts each of criminal sale of acontrolled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substancein third degree arising out of the sale of heroin and cocaine to a confidential informant.Defendant rejected a plea agreement offered by the People, pursuant to which he wouldplead guilty to one charge in the indictment and receive eight years in prison. Defendantdid plead guilty as charged, however, with the understanding that he would be sentencedby County Court to a determinate prison term between 5 and 10 years, with the potentialthat restitution would be awarded. The court thereafter sentenced him, as a second felonyoffender, to an aggregate prison term of seven years, to be followed by three years ofpostrelease supervision, and ordered that defendant pay $370 in restitution. Defendantnow appeals.
We affirm. Initially, we note that defendant's pro se claims regarding theinvoluntariness of his plea and ineffective assistance of counsel involve matters outsidethe record and, thus, are more appropriately raised in a CPL article 440 motion to vacatethe judgment (see e.g. People vDeCapria, 121 AD3d 1432, 1433 [2014]; People v Miner, 120 AD3d 1449, 1450 [2014]). Defendantfailed to preserve his sole remaining argument challenging the amount of restitutionbecause he did not request a hearing or otherwise challenge the award of restitution atsentencing, and corrective action in the interest of justice is unwarranted (see People [*2]v Ortolaza, 120 AD3d 843, 844 [2014]; People v White, 119 AD3d1286, 1287 [2014]). Accordingly, the judgment must be affirmed.
Lahtinen, J.P., Garry and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.