Opinion
2022-02714
04-22-2022
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. ROOSEVELT SCOTT, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
TULLY RINCKEY PLLC, ROCHESTER (PETER J. PULLANO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (SCOTT MYLES OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
TULLY RINCKEY PLLC, ROCHESTER (PETER J. PULLANO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (SCOTT MYLES OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, LINDLEY, AND CURRAN, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Alex R. Renzi, J.), rendered November 12, 2015. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a plea of guilty, of assault in the first degree and assault in the second degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [1]) and assault in the second degree (§ 120.05 [2]). We affirm.
Defendant contends that defense counsel was ineffective as a result of the alleged disagreements and disputes that occurred between the two during the course of the representation, which rendered defendant's decision to plead guilty involuntary. Defendant's contention survives his guilty plea "only insofar as he demonstrates that the plea bargaining process was infected by [the] allegedly ineffective assistance or that defendant entered the plea because of [his] attorney['s] allegedly poor performance" (People v Rausch, 126 A.D.3d 1535, 1535 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 1149 [2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Spencer, 170 A.D.3d 1614, 1615 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 974 [2021]; People v Ware, 159 A.D.3d 1401, 1402 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1122 [2018]). Here, we conclude that, to the extent that it survives his guilty plea, defendant's contention lacks merit inasmuch as defendant "received an advantageous plea, and 'nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel'" (People v Shaw, 133 A.D.3d 1312, 1313 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 1150 [2016], quoting People v Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397, 404 [1995]; see People v Booth, 158 A.D.3d 1253, 1255 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1078 [2018]).
Finally, contrary to defendant's further contention, we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.