| People v Weston |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 08254 [145 AD3d 746] |
| December 7, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Atiq Weston, Appellant. |
Michele Marte-Indzonka, Newburgh, NY, for appellant, and appellant pro se.
David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Goshen, NY (Robert H. Middlemiss ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the County Court, Orange County(Freehill, J.), rendered June 16, 2014, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (twocounts) under indictment No. 13-00494, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence,and (2) a judgment of the same court, also rendered June 16, 2014, convicting him ofmanslaughter in the first degree under superior court information No. 14-00297, upon hisplea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his pleas of guilty were coerced by the County Courtbecause of the restrictions imposed by it in various protective orders and lockdownorders, is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw his pleasor otherwise raise this issue before the court (see People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725,726 [1995]; People vMcCracken, 138 AD3d 1147, 1147 [2016]; People v Gomez, 137 AD3d 1161, 1162 [2016]; People v Yanez-Mejia, 133AD3d 801, 801 [2015]). In any event, the defendant's claim is belied by the record,which reveals that the defendant acknowledged under oath that nobody was forcing,threatening, or coercing him to plead guilty, and that he was entering the pleas freely andvoluntarily (see People vMcVay, 140 AD3d 1090, 1090-1091 [2016]; People v Ward, 140 AD3d903, 904 [2016]; People vMarryshow, 135 AD3d 964, 964 [2016]).
The defendant's waiver of the right to appeal precludes appellate review of his claimof ineffective assistance of counsel, except to the extent that the alleged ineffectiveassistance of counsel may have affected the voluntariness of the pleas (see People v Moore, 140 AD3d1091, 1091-1092 [2016]; People v Jessamy, 137 AD3d 1056, 1056 [2016]).Moreover, by pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited those claims of ineffectiveassistance of counsel that did not directly involve the plea bargaining process (see People v Solis, 111 AD3d654, 655 [2013]; People vPerazzo, 65 AD3d 1058, 1059 [2009]). To the extent that the defendantcontends that his counsel's conduct affected the voluntariness of his pleas, thedefendant's claims are belied by his statements during the plea proceeding, in which heacknowledged under oath that he was satisfied with his counsel's representation, that hehad not been forced into pleading guilty, and that he was entering the pleas freely andvoluntarily (see People v Ward, 140 AD3d at 904; People v Mack, 140 AD3d791, 792 [2016]; People vJessamy, 137 AD3d 1056 [2016]; People v Sulaiman, 134 AD3d 860, 860 [2015]; Peoplev Caruso, 88 [*2]AD3d 809, 810 [2011]).
The defendant's waiver of his right to appeal also precludes appellate review of hisclaim in his pro se supplemental brief that his pre-plea requests to relieve his assignedcounsel and to substitute new counsel were improperly denied (see People v Degroat, 140AD3d 1185, 1186 [2016]; People v Worthy, 138 AD3d 1042, 1042-1043 [2016]).Leventhal, J.P., Chambers, Austin and LaSalle, JJ., concur.