| People v Soprano |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 00544 [135 AD3d 1243] |
| January 28, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vDavid A. Soprano, Appellant. |
John R. Trice, Elmira, for appellant.
Kirk O. Martin, Owego (Eric H. Gartenman of counsel), for respondent.
Peters, P.J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Tioga County (Keene,J.), rendered September 23, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of thecrime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.
In satisfaction of a five-count indictment stemming from his possession ofmethamphetamine, defendant entered a guilty plea to criminal possession of a controlledsubstance in the fifth degree under count 2 of the indictment. In accordance with thenegotiated plea agreement, defendant was sentenced to a prison term of1
Defendant contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel in thatcounsel failed to pursue pretrial discovery or motions and did not move to suppress theevidence against him. As the record does not reflect that defendant made an appropriatepostallocution motion, this claim was not preserved for our review (see People v Jenkins, 130AD3d 1091, 1091 [2015]; People v Broomfield, 128 AD3d 1271, 1272 [2015], lvdenied 26 NY3d 1086 [2015]). Moreover, "[i]n the context of a guilty plea, adefendant has been afforded meaningful representation when he or she receives anadvantageous plea and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness ofcounsel" (People v Sylvan,108 AD3d 869, 870 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1091 [2014] [internalquotation marks omitted]). Under settled law, the "[f]ailure to request a suppressionhearing or to make a pretrial motion does not, by itself, constitute ineffective assistance,particularly in the absence of any basis upon which to conclude that a defendant had acolorable claim or that counsel's actions were not premised upon a legitimate strategy"(People v Vonneida, 130AD3d 1322, 1322-1323 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1093 [Dec. 29, 2015]; see People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988];People v Cooper, 126 AD3d1046, 1047-1048 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 966 [2015]; cf. People v Carnevale, 101AD3d 1375, 1378-1381 [2012]). Defendant [*2]assured County Court prior to the plea allocution that hehad sufficient time to confer with counsel regarding the plea offer and that he wassatisfied with counsel. Further, the record reflects that counsel secured a favorable pleadeal and successfully argued against second felony offender sentencing. Thus, were theissue preserved, we would find that nothing in the record supports defendant's contentionthat he was deprived of meaningful representation (see People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]; People vBenevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712-714 [1998]; People v Cooper, 126 AD3d at1048).
Garry, Rose and Devine, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.