| People v Bradford |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 02309 [126 AD3d 1374] |
| March 20, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vLawrence M. Bradford, Appellant. |
Charles J. Greenberg, Amherst, for defendant-appellant.
Cindy F. Intschert, District Attorney, Watertown (Nicole L. Kyle of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Jefferson County Court (Kim H. Martusewicz, J.),rendered September 25, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea ofguilty, of assault in the second degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimouslyaffirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea ofguilty of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [6]). We note atthe outset that, as the People correctly concede, defendant did not waive his right toappeal.
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court erred insentencing him without the benefit of an adequate presentence report (see People v Frazier, 91 AD3d1319, 1319 [2012], lv denied 18 NY3d 994 [2012]; People vGoodbody, 249 AD2d 977, 977 [1998]), and we decline to exercise our power toreview that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL470.15 [3] [c]). We reject defendant's further contention that he was denied effectiveassistance of counsel. "In the context of a guilty plea, a defendant has been affordedmeaningful representation when he or she receives an advantageous plea and nothing inthe record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of [defense] counsel . . ., and that is the case here" (People v Bonavito, 121 AD3d 1499, 1500 [2014] [internalquotation marks omitted]). To the extent that defendant contends that defense counselwas ineffective in failing to investigate or explore potential defenses, his contention isnot properly before us because it involves matters outside the record on appeal and, thus,it must be raised by way of a motion pursuant to CPL article 440 (see People v Smith, 122 AD3d1300, 1301 [2014]; Peoplev Sylvan, 107 AD3d 1044, 1045-1046 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1141[2014]). Contrary to defendant's further contention, we conclude that the court did notcoerce him into pleading guilty by advising him of the potential terms of incarceration inthe event he was convicted following a trial (see People v Hamilton, 45 AD3d 1396, 1396 [2007], lvdenied 10 NY3d 765 [2008]). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.Present—Smith, J.P., Carni, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.