| People v Monroe |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 05569 [174 AD3d 649] |
| July 10, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Savata M. Monroe, Appellant. |
Salvatore C. Adamo, New York, NY, for appellant, and appellant pro se.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel),for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Edward T.McLoughlin, J.), rendered August 24, 2016, convicting him of criminal possession of a weaponin the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree uponhis plea of guilty and was sentenced, in accordance with the plea agreement, to a determinateterm of imprisonment of 10 years plus a period of 5 years' postrelease supervision.
By pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited his contention, raised in his pro se supplementalbrief, that the indictment was defective on the ground that allegedly perjured testimony impairedthe integrity of the grand jury proceeding (see People v Manragh, 32 NY3d 1101, 1102-1103 [2018];People v Hansen, 95 NY2d 227, 232 [2000]; People v Di Raffaele, 55 NY2d 234,240 [1982]; People v Whitehurst, 291 AD2d 83, 88 [2002]; People v Garcia, 172AD2d 330 [1991]; cf. People v Pelchat, 62 NY2d 97 [1984]).
The defendant's contentions that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent becausehe was coerced by his trial attorney and the County Court are unpreserved for appellate review,since the defendant did not move to vacate his plea or otherwise raise these issues before thecourt (see People v Clarke, 93 NY2d 904, 905 [1999]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d662, 665 [1988]; People v Mitchell,156 AD3d 817, 818 [2017]; Peoplev McCracken, 138 AD3d 1147 [2016]; People v Perez, 51 AD3d 1043 [2008]). In any event, thedefendant's claims are belied by the record, which reveals that the defendant acknowledged underoath that no one had threatened or forced him to plead guilty and that he was pleading guiltyvoluntarily (see People vMcCracken, 138 AD3d 1147 [2016]; People v Tavares, 103 AD3d 820, 821 [2013]; People v Martinez, 78 AD3d 966,967 [2010]).
By pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited his claim, raised in his pro se supplemental brief,of ineffective assistance of counsel, to the extent that it did not directly involve the pleanegotiation process (see People vWeston, 145 AD3d 746, 747 [2016]; People v Solis, 111 AD3d 654, 655 [2013]; People v Perazzo, 65 AD3d 1058,1059 [2009]). To the extent that the defendant contends that his counsel's conduct affected thevoluntariness of his plea, the defendant's claim is based, in part, on matter appearing on therecord and, in part, on matter outside the record, and thus constitutes a "mixed claim" ofineffective assistance of counsel (Peoplev Maxwell, 89 AD3d 1108, 1109 [2011]; see People v Evans, 16 NY3d 571, 575 n 2 [2011]). Since thedefendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be resolved without reference tomatter outside the record, a CPL 440.10 proceeding is the appropriate forum for reviewing theclaim in its entirety, and we decline to review the claim on this direct appeal (see People v Joseph, 167 AD3d776, 778 [2018]; People vFreeman, 93 AD3d 805, 806 [2012]; People v Maxwell, 89 AD3d at 1109).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the sentence imposed was not excessive (seePeople v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Leventhal, J.P., LaSalle, Barros and BrathwaiteNelson, JJ., concur.