Opinion
106272
03-12-2015
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. TERELL R. WILSON, Appellant.
John R. Trice, Elmira, for appellant. Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton (Joshua S. Shapiro of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, McCarthy and Lynch, JJ.
John R. Trice, Elmira, for appellant.
Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton (Joshua S. Shapiro of counsel), for respondent.
McCarthy, J.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Cawley, J.), rendered July 19, 2013, convicting defendant upon his pleas of guilty of the crimes of attempted assault in the second degree and attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.
Defendant pleaded guilty to a superior court information charging him with attempted assault in the second degree. Pursuant to the plea agreement, defendant was to be sentenced, as a second felony offender, to a prison term of 1½ to 3 years. County Court advised defendant that if he failed to appear for sentencing, it would not be bound by the plea agreement and could impose a prison sentence of 2 to 4 years. Following the plea, defendant failed to appear for sentencing and County Court issued a bench warrant. Defendant was subsequently arrested and charged with committing various crimes while awaiting sentencing on his attempted assault conviction. He agreed to plead guilty to a superior court information charging him with attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree in full satisfaction of the new charges. Defendant was sentenced, as a second felony offender, to a prison term of 2 to 4 years for the attempted assault conviction and four years for the attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance conviction, to be followed by three years of postrelease supervision, with the sentences to run concurrently. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Defendant's contention that he did not receive the effective assistance of counsel is unpreserved for our review inasmuch as the record fails to indicate that defendant made an appropriate postallocution motion ( see People v Moses, 110 AD3d 1118, 1118 [2013]; People v Stroman 107 AD3d 1023, 1025 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1046 [2013]). To the extent that his claims address matters outside of the record, they are more properly the subject of a CPL article 440 motion ( see People v Sylvan, 107 AD3d 1044, 1045-1046 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1141 [2014]; People v Stroman, 107 AD3d at 1025 [2013]).
Peters, P.J., Lahtinen and Lynch, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.