People v. Dunne

Full title: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Peter DUNNE, appellant.

Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: May 15, 2013

106 A.D.3d 928 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

964 N.Y.S.2d 663

2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 3497

Opinion

2013-05-15

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Peter DUNNE, appellant.

Michele Marte–Indzonka, Newburgh, N.Y., for appellant. Francis D. Phillips II, District Attorney, Middletown, N.Y. (Andrew R. Kass of counsel), for respondent.

PETER B. SKELOS

Michele Marte–Indzonka, Newburgh, N.Y., for appellant. Francis D. Phillips II, District Attorney, Middletown, N.Y. (Andrew R. Kass of counsel), for respondent.
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, PLUMMER E. LOTT, and SYLVIA HINDS–RADIX, JJ.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Freehill, J.), rendered January 31, 2011, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

By pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited appellate review of his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel to the extent that the claim does not directly involve the plea negotiation ( see People v. Petgen, 55 N.Y.2d 529, 535, 450 N.Y.S.2d 299, 435 N.E.2d 669;People v. Soria, 99 A.D.3d 1027, 952 N.Y.S.2d 300). In addition, the defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, except to the extent that the alleged ineffective assistance affected the voluntariness of his plea ( see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 257, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145;People v. Smith, 102 A.D.3d 896, 897, 958 N.Y.S.2d 204). To the extent that the defendant claims that ineffective assistance of counsel affectedthe voluntariness of his plea, the record reveals that he received an advantageous plea, and nothing in the record casts doubt upon the apparent effectiveness of counsel ( see People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397, 404, 633 N.Y.S.2d 270, 657 N.E.2d 265;People v. Ropiza, 100 A.D.3d 935, 954 N.Y.S.2d 188,lv. denied20 N.Y.3d 1103, ––– N.Y.S.2d ––––, ––– N.E.2d –––– [Mar. 4, 2013] ).

The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his claim that the sentence imposed was excessive ( see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d at 255–256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145;People v. Elufe, 102 A.D.3d 982, 958 N.Y.S.2d 611).