Opinion
2017–11269 2018–12858 Ind.No. 3365/14 Ind. No. 7929/14
09-25-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Luis BLANCO, Appellant. (Matter No. 1) The People, etc., Respondent, v. Luis Blanco, also known as King Humble, also known as Humble Willcutyou, Appellant. (Matter No. 2)
Craig S. Leeds, New York, NY, for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Sholom J. Twersky, and Avshalom Yotam of counsel), for respondent.
Craig S. Leeds, New York, NY, for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Sholom J. Twersky, and Avshalom Yotam of counsel), for respondent.
LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, SHERI S. ROMAN, HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant contends that his pleas of guilty were not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. However, the defendant failed to preserve this contention for appellate review, since he did not move to vacate his pleas or otherwise raise this issue before the Supreme Court (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Ramos, 164 A.D.3d 922, 82 N.Y.S.3d 103 ; People v. Narbonne, 131 A.D.3d 626, 627, 14 N.Y.S.3d 917 ). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here, because the defendant's allocution did not cast significant doubt on his guilt, negate an essential element of the crimes, or call into question the voluntariness of his pleas (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ; People v. Ramos, 164 A.D.3d at 922–923, 82 N.Y.S.3d 103 ; People v. Stone, 91 A.D.3d 977, 937 N.Y.S.2d 630 ). In any event, the record demonstrates that the defendant's pleas were knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered (see People v. Seeber, 4 N.Y.3d 780, 781, 793 N.Y.S.2d 826, 826 N.E.2d 797 ; People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 543, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646 ).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel is based, in part, on matter appearing on the record and, in part, on matter outside the record and, thus, constitutes a "mixed claim" of ineffective assistance of counsel ( People v. Maxwell, 89 A.D.3d 1108, 1109, 933 N.Y.S.2d 386 ; see People v. Evans, 16 N.Y.3d 571, 575 n 2, 925 N.Y.S.2d 366, 949 N.E.2d 457 ). Since the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be resolved without reference to matter outside the record, a CPL 440.10 proceeding is the appropriate forum for reviewing the claim in its entirety, and we decline to review the claim on this direct appeal (see People v. Freeman, 93 A.D.3d 805, 806, 940 N.Y.S.2d 314 ; People v. Maxwell, 89 A.D.3d at 1109, 933 N.Y.S.2d 386 ).
The sentences imposed were not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
AUSTIN, J.P., LEVENTHAL, ROMAN and LASALLE, JJ., concur.