Opinion
February 3, 1995
Appeal from the Oneida County Court, Buckley, J.
Present — Green, J.P., Lawton, Wesley, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel is without merit (see, People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 708-709; People v. Arnold, 188 A.D.2d 1020, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 836; People v. Salgado, 140 A.D.2d 855, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 924). Further, the record establishes that defendant fully understood the plea that was offered. Through an interpreter County Court and defendant's counsel repeatedly explained the plea offer and the potential consequences if defendant proceeded to trial (see, People v. Mejia, 199 A.D.2d 1068, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 874; People v. Ferrer, 158 A.D.2d 315; People v. Salgado, supra).
The court did not err in granting the People's motion to consolidate the two indictments, both charging criminal sale and possession of a controlled substance. The offenses charged in the two indictments were the "same or similar in law" (CPL 200.20 [c]), and defendant failed to establish "good cause" to justify denial of consolidation (CPL 200.20 [a], [b]; see, People v Lane, 56 N.Y.2d 1).
Finally, we reject the contention of defendant that his sentence is unduly harsh or severe.