| People v Hili |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 00848 [158 AD3d 647] |
| February 7, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v David Hili, Appellant. |
Jason M. Bernheimer, Katonah, NY, for appellant.
Anthony A. Scarpino, Jr., District Attorney, White Plains, NY (William C. Milaccio andJennifer Spencer of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Anne E.Minihan, J.), rendered May 21, 2015, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon hisplea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d337, 341-342 [2015]; People vLopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256-257 [2006]; People v Brown, 122 AD3d 133, 142-144 [2014]). The defendant'svalid waiver of his right to appeal bars review of his challenge to the procedures used by theCounty Court in its determination regarding restitution (see People v Callahan, 80 NY2d273, 281 [1992]; People v Rohs,140 AD3d 800, 800 [2016]; Peoplev Burton, 69 AD3d 644, 644 [2010]; People v Ordover, 67 AD3d 824, 824 [2009]; People v Williams, 62 AD3d 730,731 [2009]; People v Caba, 238 AD2d 603 [1997]).
The defendant's contention that his attorney was ineffective is based, in part, on matterappearing on the record and, in part, on matter outside the record, and thus constitutes a "mixedclaim" of ineffective assistance (Peoplev Maxwell, 89 AD3d 1108, 1109 [2011]; see People v Evans, 16 NY3d 571, 575 n 2 [2011]). In this case, itis not evident from the matter appearing on the record that the defendant was deprived of theeffective assistance of counsel (cf. People v Crump, 53 NY2d 824 [1981]; People vBrown, 45 NY2d 852 [1978]; People v McClurkin, 96 AD3d 784, 785 [2012]; People v Bruno, 73 AD3d 941,942 [2010]). Since the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance cannot be resolved withoutreference to matter outside the record, a CPL 440.10 proceeding would be the appropriate forumfor reviewing the claim in its entirety (see People v McClurkin, 96 AD3d at 785; see generally People v Freeman, 93AD3d 805 [2012]; People v Maxwell, 89 AD3d at 1109). Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Millerand LaSalle, JJ., concur.