Opinion
2014-05-8
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Lenworth McGOWAN, Appellant.
Christopher Shambo, Ballston Spa, for appellant. James A. Murphy III, District Attorney, Ballston Spa (Nicholas E. Tishler of counsel), for respondent.
Christopher Shambo, Ballston Spa, for appellant. James A. Murphy III, District Attorney, Ballston Spa (Nicholas E. Tishler of counsel), for respondent.
Before: LAHTINEN, J.P., McCARTHY, GARRY and EGAN JR., JJ.
McCARTHY, J.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Saratoga County (Scarano, J.), rendered October 22, 2012, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.
In satisfaction of a 17–count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and was sentenced pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement to two years in prison followed by two years of postrelease supervision. His current argument that his guilty plea was involuntary was preserved by his unsuccessful motion to withdraw his plea and survives his valid appeal waiver ( see People v. Carbone, 101 A.D.3d 1232, 1233, 956 N.Y.S.2d 221 [2012];People v. Shurock, 83 A.D.3d 1342, 1343, 920 N.Y.S.2d 862 [2011] ); however, it is without merit. The record reveals that defendant unequivocally acknowledged that he understood the consequences of pleading guilty and, by his affirmative responses to County Court's inquiries, freely admitted committing the crime to which he was pleading guilty ( see People v. Davis, 84 A.D.3d 1645, 1646, 923 N.Y.S.2d 364 [2011],lv. denied17 N.Y.3d 815, 929 N.Y.S.2d 804, 954 N.E.2d 95 [2011]; People v. Shurock, 83 A.D.3d at 1343, 920 N.Y.S.2d 862). Furthermore, while defendant's claim of ineffective representation survives his appeal waiver to the extent that such representation might have affected the voluntariness of his plea, defendant's argument that counsel pressured him during certain conversations to accept the plea offer involves matters outside the record and is thus more properly raised in a CPL article 440 motion ( see People v. DeJesus, 96 A.D.3d 1295, 1295–1296, 947 N.Y.S.2d 216 [2012];People v. Pendelton, 81 A.D.3d 1037, 1038–1039, 916 N.Y.S.2d 297 [2011],lv. denied16 N.Y.3d 898, 926 N.Y.S.2d 33, 949 N.E.2d 981 [2011] ). In all other respects, the record reflects that defendant received meaningful representation, culminating in a very favorable plea bargain ( see People v. Shurock, 83 A.D.3d at 1344, 920 N.Y.S.2d 862;People v. Chaney, 70 A.D.3d 1251, 1252–1253, 897 N.Y.S.2d 275 [2010],lv. denied15 N.Y.3d 748, 906 N.Y.S.2d 821, 933 N.E.2d 220 [2010] ).
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. LAHTINEN, J.P., GARRY and EGAN JR., JJ., concur.