| People v Cross |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 06591 [165 AD3d 1315] |
| October 4, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1](October 4, 2018)
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Thomas E. Cross,Appellant. |
Henry C. Meier, Delmar, for appellant.
Stephen K. Cornwell Jr., District Attorney, Binghamton (Peter N. DeLucia of counsel), forrespondent.
Mulvey, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.),rendered December 9, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of recklessendangerment in the first degree.
In full satisfaction of a four-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to recklessendangerment in the first degree. County Court sentenced him, as a second felony offender, to 2to 4 years in prison. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Defendant's claim that his plea allocution was factually insufficient as todepraved indifference, a required element of the crime of reckless endangerment in the firstdegree (see Penal Law § 120.25), is unpreserved for our review given thatdefendant failed to make an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Cook, 150 AD3d1543, 1544 [2017]; People vGriffith, 136 AD3d 1114, 1114 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1184 [2017]).Moreover, defendant did not make any statements during the plea colloquy that cast doubt on hisguilt or negated an essential element of the crime so as to trigger the narrow exception to thepreservation rule (see People vJohnson, 153 AD3d 1047, 1048 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 1061 [2017];People v Griffith, 136 AD3d at 1114-1115). Defendant's claims that he was denied theeffective assistance of counsel are not related to the plea bargaining process or the voluntarinessof the plea and, therefore, are forfeited by his guilty plea (see People v Petgen, 55 NY2d529, 534 [1982]; People vChappelle, 121 AD3d 1166, 1168 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1118 [2015]; People v Mercer, 81 AD3d 1159,1160 [2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 999 [2012]). In any event, "[i]n the context of a guiltyplea, a defendant has been afforded meaningful representation when he or she receives anadvantageous plea and nothing in the record casts doubt upon the apparent effectiveness ofcounsel" and, were we to address these claims, we would conclude that defendant receivedmeaningful representation (People vCase, 139 AD3d 1239, 1240 [2016] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted],lv denied 28 NY3d 928 [2016]).
[*2] Garry,P.J., Clark, Rumsey and Pritzker, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.