Opinion
March 22, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.).
Contrary to defendant's contention, the plea colloquy did not raise the possibility of an agency defense. Under such a theory, a person is not liable for the sale of narcotics if he participates as a "mere extension of the buyer" with no "independent desire or inclination to promote the transaction." (People v Argibay, 45 N.Y.2d 45, 53-54, cert denied sub nom. Hahn-DiGuiseppe v New York, 439 U.S. 930.) The defense does not absolve a person acting as a "middleman — be he a jobber * * * or a broker furthering his own interests by serving both seller and buyer — who thus essentially acts for himself rather than merely as an extension of the buyer". (People v Roche, 45 N.Y.2d 78, 83, cert denied 439 U.S. 958.) The plea transcript before us clearly establishes that defendant was acting with others to effect the sale of heroin, and that his admitted conduct cannot be construed as that of agent for the undercover officer.
Defendant's argument that the plea allocution was insufficient must also fail. There is no requirement for a "uniform mandatory catechism of pleading defendants". (People v Nixon, 21 N.Y.2d 338, 353, cert denied sub. nom. Robinson v New York, 393 U.S. 1067.) A review of the plea minutes reveals that defendant's plea was knowingly and voluntarily given, and that he understood both the consequences of his plea and the waiver of rights which accompanied it. (People v Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9.)
With respect to defendant's contention that his sentence was excessive, we note that he was sentenced in accordance with the plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. Having "received the benefit of his bargain", defendant is bound by its terms. (People v Felman, 141 A.D.2d 889, 890, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 918.)
Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Ross, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.