| People v Blanco |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 06786 [175 AD3d 1548] |
| September 25, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Luis Blanco, Appellant. The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Luis Blanco, Also Known as King Humble, Also Known as Humble Willcutyou,Appellant. |
Craig S. Leeds, New York, NY, for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Sholom J. Twersky, andAvshalom Yotam of counsel), for respondent.
Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DannyK. Chun, J.), both rendered May 31, 2016, convicting him of attempted murder in the seconddegree under Indictment No. 3365/14, and attempted murder in the second degree underIndictment No. 7929/14, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant contends that his pleas of guilty were not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.However, the defendant failed to preserve this contention for appellate review, since he did notmove to vacate his pleas or otherwise raise this issue before the Supreme Court (see CPL470.05 [2]; People v Ramos, 164AD3d 922 [2018]; People vNarbonne, 131 AD3d 626, 627 [2015]). Contrary to the defendant's contention, theexception to the preservation requirement does not apply here, because the defendant's allocutiondid not cast significant doubt on his guilt, negate an essential element of the crimes, or call intoquestion the voluntariness of his pleas (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988];People v Ramos, 164 AD3d at 922-923; People v Stone, 91 AD3d 977 [2012]). In any event, the recorddemonstrates that the defendant's pleas were knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered (see People v Seeber, 4 NY3d 780,781 [2005]; People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel isbased, in part, on matter appearing on the record and, in part, on matter outside the record and,thus, constitutes a "mixed claim" of ineffective assistance of counsel (People v Maxwell, 89 AD3d 1108,1109 [2011]; see People v Evans, 16NY3d 571, 575 n 2 [2011]). Since the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counselcannot be resolved without reference to matter outside the record, a CPL 440.10 proceeding isthe appropriate forum for reviewing the claim in its entirety, and we decline to review the claimon this direct appeal (see People vFreeman, 93 AD3d 805, 806 [2012]; People v Maxwell, 89 AD3d at 1109).
The sentences imposed were not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).Austin, J.P., Leventhal, Roman and LaSalle, JJ., concur.