Opinion
05-31-2016
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Johnny BLANDING, Defendant–Appellant.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Molly Ryan of counsel), for appellant. Johnny Blanding, appellant pro se. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Natalia Bedoya McGinn of counsel), for respondent.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Molly Ryan of counsel), for appellant. Johnny Blanding, appellant pro se.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Natalia Bedoya McGinn of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. FitzGerald, J.), rendered June 21, 2013, convicting defendant, upon his guilty plea, of attempted assault in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 7 ½ years, and order (same court and Justice), entered on or about June 13, 2014, denying defendant's CPL 440.10 motion to vacate his conviction, unanimously affirmed.
Because defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea was premised on completely different grounds from those he asserts on appeal, his present claim that his plea was coerced by the court's statements during the plea proceeding is unpreserved (see People v. Tabares, 52 A.D.3d 437, 860 N.Y.S.2d 114 [1st Dept.2008], lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 835, 868 N.Y.S.2d 610, 897 N.E.2d 1094 [2008] ), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find the plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered, and that the court's accurate description of the potential consequences of a conviction after trial was not coercive (see id. ).
Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims regarding defendant's desire to testify before the grand jury are without merit (see People v. Hogan, 26 N.Y.3d 779, 28 N.Y.S.3d 1, 48 N.E.3d 58 [2016] ; People v. Simmons, 10 N.Y.3d 946, 949, 862 N.Y.S.2d 852, 893 N.E.2d 130 [2008] ).
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant's pro se claims.
FRIEDMAN, J.P., RENWICK, MOSKOWITZ, RICHTER, KAPNICK, JJ., concur.