| People v Jenkins |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 05711 [130 AD3d 1091] |
| July 2, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Bobby T. Jenkins, Appellant. |
Linda B. Johnson, West Sand Lake, for appellant.
Weeden A. Wetmore, District Attorney, Elmira (John R. Thweatt of counsel), forrespondent.
Devine, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County(Hayden, J.), rendered April 12, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of thecrime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.
In satisfaction of a six-count indictment related to the sale and possession of cocaineon three occasions, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of criminal sale of a controlledsubstance in the third degree. He was sentenced, as an admitted second felony offender,to the agreed-upon prison term of four years with three years of postrelease supervision.Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Defendant's contention that he did not receive the effective assistance ofcounsel is not preserved for our review as the record does not reflect that he made anappropriate postallocution motion (see People v Moses, 110 AD3d 1118, 1118 [2013]). In anyevent, "[i]t is well settled that, in the context of a guilty plea, a defendant has beenafforded meaningful representation when he or she receives an advantageous plea andnothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel" (People v Wares, 124 AD3d1079, 1080 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted], lv denied25 NY3d 993 [2015]). Counsel pursued appropriate pretrial motions and discovery, andensured that the controlled substance lab reports, which reflected that the substancestested positive for the presence of cocaine, were received before proceeding with the pleaagreement. Were this issue properly before us, we would find that the record reflects thatdefendant received meaningful representation (see id.). [*2]Any challenge to counsel's preplea motion practice ordiscovery efforts was forfeited by defendant's guilty plea (see People v Hansen,95 NY2d 227, 230-231 [2000]; People v Trombley, 91 AD3d 1197, 1201 [2012], lvdenied 21 NY3d 914 [2013]). Finally, to the extent that defendant makes argumentsaddressed to matters outside the record, such as what counsel investigated, they are moreproperly raised in a motion to vacate pursuant to CPL article 440 (see People v Brown, 125AD3d 1049, 1050 [2015]).
Peters, P.J., Lahtinen and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.