| People v Williams |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 03024 [149 AD3d 986] |
| April 19, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Ricky Williams, Appellant. |
Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, NY (Dina Zloczower of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Thomas M. Ross,and Corey Omer of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gary, J.),rendered April 30, 2014, convicting him of burglary in the third degree (two counts), criminalmischief in the fourth degree (two counts), criminal trespass in the second degree, and petitlarceny, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that his waiver of theright to a jury trial was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see CPL 470.05 [2];People v Johnson, 51 NY2d 986, 987-988 [1980]; People v Pazmini, 132 AD3d 1015 [2015]; People v Petitbrun, 123 AD3d1057, 1058 [2014]; People vButler, 17 AD3d 379, 380 [2005]). In any event, the record does not support thedefendant's contention that the waiver was invalid. The defendant executed a written waiver inopen court after allocution by the court, the trial justice approved the waiver, and thecircumstances surrounding the waiver supported the Supreme Court's determination that thewaiver was made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently (see People v Pazmini, 132AD3d at 1015; People v Silva, 91AD3d 675, 675 [2012]; People vFani, 59 AD3d 460 [2009]).
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court misapprehended its discretion by notsentencing him to parole supervision is unpreserved for appellate review and we decline to reachit in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 410.91; People v Eggsware, 90 AD3d1231, 1234 n 2 [2011]; People vRivers, 63 AD3d 423 [2009]). The defendant's further contention that he receivedineffective assistance of counsel is not reviewable on direct appeal because it involves matterdehors the record (see People v Love, 57 NY2d 998, 1000 [1982]; People vRivers, 63 AD3d at 423).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Barros and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.