Opinion
August 7, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Pitaro, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's position, he was not deprived of meaningful representation by trial counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137). The record reflects that defendant's trial counsel adequately represented him at the suppression hearing, during the plea proceedings, and at the sentencing. Significantly, at no point during counsel's representation did the defendant register an objection to his performance and, in fact, the defendant received a beneficial sentence at counsel's behest. Moreover, many of the matters upon which the defendant relies in attacking the adequacy of his trial counsel are dehors the record and, thus are not properly before this court on direct appeal from the judgment of conviction (see, People v. Ramos, 63 N.Y.2d 640; People v. Williams, 130 A.D.2d 788).
Furthermore, the defendant's challenge to the adequacy of the plea allocution is not preserved for appellate review since he never moved to withdraw his guilty plea at any time prior to sentencing (see, People v. Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636). In any event, the allocution clearly satisfied the requirements of People v. Harris ( 61 N.Y.2d 9) and, contrary to the defendant's contention, he expressly acknowledged that he knowingly possessed the heroin in question (see, Penal Law § 220.34).
The defendant's challenge to the propriety of the hearing court's suppression ruling is similarly without merit. We conclude that based on the evidence adduced at the suppression hearing, the police officers, who were responding to a radio transmission indicating that two black males in Lincoln Park were selling drugs, acted reasonably in briefly detaining the defendant when he attempted to flee the scene and in forcing him to remove his hands from his jacket pockets. The officers' actions were justified, particularly in view of the facts that the defendant and his companion fit the description of the alleged drug sellers provided in the radio call, that they were in a "drug prone" location late at night and that the officers were reasonably in fear of their safety (see, People v. Salaman, 71 N.Y.2d 869; cf., People v. John, 151 A.D.2d 609).
Finally, we find that the sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive under the circumstances of this case (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80) and, in any event, was specifically negotiated for by the defendant (see, People v. Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816). Rubin, J.P., Spatt, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.