| People v Vonneida |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 06272 [130 AD3d 1322] |
| July 23, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vDaryl E. Vonneida, Appellant. |
John R. Trice, Elmira, for appellant.
Joseph G. Fazzary, District Attorney, Watkins Glen (John C. Tunney of counsel), forrespondent.
McCarthy, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schuyler County(Morris, J.), rendered December 19, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guiltyof the crime of course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree (threecounts).
Defendant was charged in a four-count indictment with repeated sex crimes againstthree children under the age of 13. In satisfaction thereof, he pleaded guilty to threecounts of course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree. While there wasno specific sentence commitment, defendant was promised that the sentences would runconcurrently to the sentence to be imposed upon his convictions in federal court forproduction of child pornography and other crimes. He was thereafter sentenced to lifeimprisonment on the federal charges (United States v Vonneida, 601 Fed Appx38 [2d Cir 2015]). County Court imposed a sentence of seven years on each count, to beserved consecutively to one another but concurrently to the federal sentence. Defendantappeals.
Defendant contends that he did not receive the effective assistance of counsel in thatcounsel failed to pursue pretrial discovery and motions. "It is well settled that, in thecontext of a guilty plea, a defendant has been afforded meaningful representation whenhe or she receives an advantageous plea and nothing in the record casts doubt on theapparent effectiveness of counsel" (People v Wares, 124 AD3d 1079, 1080 [2015], lvdenied 25 NY3d 993 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).Failure to request a suppression hearing or to make a pretrial motion does not, by itself,constitute ineffective assistance, particularly in the absence of [*2]any basis upon which to conclude that a defendant had acolorable claim or that counsel's actions were not premised upon a legitimate strategy(see People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; People v Cooper, 126 AD3d1046, 1047-1048 [2015]; cf. People v Carnevale, 101 AD3d 1375, 1378-1379[2012]). Defendant affirmed during the plea that he was "very satisfied" with counsel,who procured a favorable disposition with prison time concurrent to his federal sentence,and nothing in the record indicates a lack of meaningful representation (see People v Caban, 5 NY3d143, 152 [2005]).
We are not persuaded by defendant's remaining argument that the sentences wereharsh and excessive, given defendant's extreme abuse of these young children.Consecutive sentences were authorized for each of these convictions, which involvedseparate and distinct acts of repeated abuse perpetrated against three different children(see Penal Law § 70.25 [2]; People v Salcedo, 92 NY2d1019, 1021 [1998]).
Peters, P.J., Egan Jr. and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.