Opinion
2009-1283 W CR, 2009-1284 W CR.
Decided June 17, 2011.
Appeals by defendant from judgments of the City Court of New Rochelle, Westchester County (John P. Colangelo, J.), rendered May 21, 2009. The judgments convicted defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree and petit larceny.
ORDERED that, on the court's own motion, the appeals are consolidated for purposes of disposition; and it is further,
ORDERED that the judgments of conviction are affirmed.
PRESENT: NICOLAI, P.J., LaCAVA and IANNACCI, JJ.
Defendant was initially charged in a felony complaint with one count of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.05), one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (Penal Law § 220.03) and one count of attempted petit larceny (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 155.25). In a second felony complaint, defendant was charged with one count of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.05) and petit larceny (Penal Law § 155.25). With the assistance of counsel, defendant entered into a negotiated plea agreement which, among other things, provided for the dismissal of the felony charges and included the City Court's commitment of consecutive sentences of one year incarceration on the conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree and six months' incarceration on the conviction of petit larceny.
On appeal, defendant contends that the sentences imposed were excessive. Since defendant received the sentence for which he negotiated, he has no cause to complain on appeal ( see People v Rojas , 74 AD3d 1369 ; People v Cooper , 17 AD3d 380 ; People v Isaac, 282 AD2d 690). In any event, the sentences imposed were not excessive ( see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 85-86).
Defendant's contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel due to counsel's failure to advise him, prior to entry of the guilty plea, that the sentences to be imposed were excessive is not reviewable on defendant's direct appeal from the judgment because it involves matters which do not appear on the record and should have been raised in a postjudgment CPL 440.10 motion ( see People v Taylor , 22 Misc 3d 138 [A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50341[U] [App Term, 9th 10th Jud Dists 2009]). We further find that there was no deprivation of defendant's right to the effective assistance counsel arising from defense counsel's failure to make an application for a reduction of the sentences based upon factors indicated in the presentence report since such an application or argument had little or no chance of success, as the City Court imposed the sentences agreed to as part of the plea agreement ( see People v Bunn , 79 AD3d 1143 ; People v Terrell , 78 AD3d 865 ; People v Brooks, 283 AD2d 776).
Accordingly, the judgments convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree and petit larceny are affirmed.
Nicolai, P.J., LaCava and Iannacci, JJ., concur.