| People v Vicente |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 08700 [167 AD3d 951] |
| December 19, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Miguel Vicente, Appellant. |
Christopher J. Cassar, P.C., Huntington, NY, for appellant.
Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Alfred J. Croce of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeals by the defendant (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County(William J. Condon, J.), rendered July 24, 2015, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlledsubstance in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence, and (2), bypermission, from an order of the same court dated August 19, 2015, which denied, without ahearing, his motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPL 440.10.
Ordered that the judgment and the order are affirmed.
On June 15, 2015, the defendant pleaded guilty to one count of criminal sale of a controlledsubstance in the first degree, in full satisfaction of a multicount indictment that included, interalia, a charge of operating as a major trafficker (of controlled substances). Prior to sentencing, thedefendant, represented by new counsel, moved to vacate his plea on the grounds of coercion andformer counsel's alleged failure to properly investigate the case. The motion was summarilydenied and the defendant received the negotiated-for sentence. The defendant subsequently fileda postconviction motion to vacate the judgment of conviction, based on the same grounds. Themotion was denied without a hearing by the Supreme Court.
Where, as here, a defendant pleads guilty, he or she forfeits appellate review of any claim ofineffective assistance of counsel that does not directly involve the plea negotiation process (see People v Amorosano, 153 AD3d849 [2017]; People vBuggsward, 138 AD3d 881, 882 [2016]). Moreover, "[w]hen a defendant moves towithdraw a guilty plea, the nature and extent of the fact-finding inquiry rests largely in thediscretion of the Judge to whom the motion is made and a hearing will be granted only in rareinstances" (People v Brown, 14NY3d 113, 116 [2010] [internal quotation marks and brackets omitted]).
Here, the defendant's contention that he was coerced into pleading guilty as a result ofineffective assistance by his former counsel is belied, inter alia, by the defendant's statementsduring the plea proceeding, at which he was represented by his former counsel, andacknowledged under oath that he was satisfied with his former counsel's representation, and thathe had not been coerced into pleading guilty (see People v Bennett, 115 AD3d 973, 974 [2014]). Therefore, weagree with the Supreme Court's denial, without a hearing, of the defendant's motion to withdrawhis plea on this ground.
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in failing to conduct a furtherinquiry into the validity of the plea in light of the defendant's generalized denial of guilt duringhis interview with the Department of Probation is unpreserved for appellate review, since thedefendant failed to move to withdraw his plea on that ground (see CPL 470.05 [2]). Inany event, the contention is without merit (see People v Goberman, 164 AD3d 602, 603 [2018]; People v Smith, 148 AD3d 939,940 [2017]).
We also agree with the Supreme Court's denial, without a hearing, of the defendant's motionpursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction. The defendant's contentions thatthe ineffective assistance of his former counsel infected his plea are belied by the record, whichreflects that former counsel negotiated a favorable plea agreement that substantially limited thedefendant's exposure to imprisonment and that, under the totality of the circumstances, thedefendant received meaningful representation (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668[1984]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]; People v Carr, 89 AD3d 1033, 1034 [2011]; People vMobley, 221 AD2d 376, 376 [1995]).
The defendant's waiver of the right to appeal—the validity of which is not questionedon appeal—precludes him from invoking this Court's interest of justice jurisdiction toreduce the sentence (see People vLopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]; People v Cantarero, 123 AD3d 841, 841 [2014]). Chambers, J.P.,Sgroi, Barros and Iannacci, JJ., concur.