From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Deale

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 2, 2006
29 A.D.3d 602 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Summary

rejecting defendant's ineffective assistance claims, in part, because "most of [them] relate to matters which did not directly involve the plea bargaining process"

Summary of this case from Silent v. Perlmann

Opinion

2004-02584.

May 2, 2006.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Braslow, J.), rendered March 24, 2004, convicting him of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Barry A. Kamen, PLLC, Stony Brook, N.Y., for appellant.

Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Grazia DiVincenzo of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Miller, J.P., Ritter, Luciano, Spolzino and Dillon, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We agree with the defendant that his purported waiver of his right to appeal was not effective ( see People v. Billingslea, 6 NY3d 248 [2006]; People v. McCain, 7 AD3d 815; People v Boustani, 300 AD2d 313). However, the defendant's present claims regarding the alleged ineffective assistance of his trial counsel are unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v. Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636; People v. Catts, 26 AD3d 341; People v. Aguirre, 304 AD2d 771; People v. Leo, 255 AD2d 458). Furthermore, most of these claims relate to matters which did not directly involve the plea-bargaining process ( see People v. Petgen, 55 NY2d 529; People v. Scalercio, 10 AD3d 697) or are dehors the record ( see People v. Campbell, 6 AD3d 623; People v. Stevenson, 5 AD3d 405; People v. Aguirre, supra).

Moreover, since the defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive the sentence which was thereafter imposed, and which was the minimum sentence authorized by law, he has no basis to now complain that his sentence was excessive ( see People v. Gillyard, 237 AD2d 302; People v. Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816).


Summaries of

People v. Deale

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 2, 2006
29 A.D.3d 602 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

rejecting defendant's ineffective assistance claims, in part, because "most of [them] relate to matters which did not directly involve the plea bargaining process"

Summary of this case from Silent v. Perlmann
Case details for

People v. Deale

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DAVID DEALE, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 2, 2006

Citations

29 A.D.3d 602 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 3603
813 N.Y.S.2d 311

Citing Cases

State v. Wilson

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. The defendant's contentions that his plea was not knowingly,…

State v. Silent

Moreover, the defendant acknowledged that he discussed the plea and waiver with his attorney, executed the…