| People v Long |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 05330 [151 AD3d 1886] |
| June 30, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Vincent S. Long, Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.) |
D.J. & J.A. Cirando, Esqs., Syracuse (Bradley E. Keem of counsel), fordefendant-appellant.
Brooks T. Baker, District Attorney, Bath (John C. Tunney of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Steuben County Court (Marianne Furfure, A.J.), renderedFebruary 13, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminalpossession of a controlled substance in the third degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon hisplea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law§ 220.16 [12]). In appeal No. 2, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting himupon his Alford plea of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree(§ 220.16 [1]) and, in appeal No. 3, he appeals from a judgment convicting himupon his Alford plea of bribing a witness (§ 215.00).
In appeal No. 1, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the guilty pleawas not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered inasmuch as he failed to move towithdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction on that ground (see People v Zulian, 68 AD3d1731, 1732 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 894 [2010]) and, contrary to defendant'scontention, this case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation requirement setforth in People v Lopez (71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]). In any event, the record establishesthat defendant's contention is without merit. Defendant's further contention that he was deniedthe opportunity to withdraw his plea is belied by the record and patently without merit.
With respect to the pleas in all three appeals, it is well settled that the only claims ofineffective assistance of counsel that survive a guilty plea are those where the plea was infectedby the alleged ineffective assistance (seePeople v Collins, 129 AD3d 1676, 1676-1677 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1038[2015]). To the extent that defendant contends that alleged ineffective assistance infected thepleas, we conclude that the contention is without merit, inasmuch as it is belied by his statementsduring the plea colloquies (see People vGarner, 86 AD3d 955, 956 [2011]), or it involves matters that are outside the record andis not reviewable on direct appeal (seegenerally People v Davis, 119 AD3d 1383, 1384 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 960[2014]). We further note that, as part of the combined plea agreement, defendant waived anyclaim he had to specific performance of an alleged off-the-record plea agreement and that heallegedly complied with the conditions thereof in order to receive an allegedly more lenientsentence promise with respect to all three convictions at issue herein (see generally People v Pena, 7 AD3d259, 260 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 645 [2004]).
We reject defendant's further contention that County Court erred in failing to correct an errorin the presentence report. The record establishes that the court ordered the appropriate [*2]correction and thus no corrective action is required by thisCourt.
Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Peradotto, J.P., Carni,Lindley, Troutman and Scudder, JJ.