From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Leverich

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
May 4, 2016
139 A.D.3d 756 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

05-04-2016

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Herbert L. LEVERICH, appellant.

Salvatore C. Adamo, New York, N.Y., for appellant. William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.


Salvatore C. Adamo, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Greller, J., at plea; Forman, J., at sentencing), rendered September 11, 2014, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent because the County Court failed to advise him of the constitutional rights he was forfeiting upon his plea of guilty is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw the plea (see People v. Sirico, 135 A.D.3d 19, 22, 18 N.Y.S.3d 430 ; People v. Isaiah S., 130 A.D.3d 1081, 13 N.Y.S.3d 840 ; People v. Bennett, 122 A.D.3d 871, 872, 996 N.Y.S.2d 369 ). In any event, the plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made (see Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 747 n. 4, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 ; People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 19, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170 ).

The defendant's contention that he was deprived of his right to the effective assistance of counsel is based, in part, on matter appearing on the record and, in part, on matter outside the record, and thus constitutes a “mixed claim” of ineffective assistance (People v. Maxwell, 89 A.D.3d 1108, 1109, 933 N.Y.S.2d 386 ; see People v. Evans, 16 N.Y.3d 571, 575 n. 2, 925 N.Y.S.2d 366, 949 N.E.2d 457 ). In this case, it is not evident from the matter appearing on the record that the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 ; People v. McDonald, 1 N.Y.3d 109, 114, 769 N.Y.S.2d 781, 802 N.E.2d 131 ; People v. Tomaselli, 7 N.Y.2d 350, 355, 197 N.Y.S.2d 697, 165 N.E.2d 551 ; People v. Johnson, 91 A.D.2d 782, 783, 458 N.Y.S.2d 83 ; cf. People v. Crump, 53 N.Y.2d 824, 440 N.Y.S.2d 170, 422 N.E.2d 815 ; People v. Brown, 45 N.Y.2d 852, 410 N.Y.S.2d 287, 382 N.E.2d 1149 ). Since the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance cannot be resolved without reference to matter outside the record, a CPL 440.10 proceeding is the appropriate forum for reviewing the claim in its entirety (see People v. Freeman, 93 A.D.3d 805, 940 N.Y.S.2d 314 ; People v. Maxwell, 89 A.D.3d at 1109, 933 N.Y.S.2d 386 ; People v. Rohlehr, 87 A.D.3d 603, 604, 927 N.Y.S.2d 919 ).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).

CHAMBERS, J.P., AUSTIN, ROMAN and DUFFY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Leverich

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
May 4, 2016
139 A.D.3d 756 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

People v. Leverich

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Herbert L. LEVERICH, appellant.

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

Date published: May 4, 2016

Citations

139 A.D.3d 756 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
29 N.Y.S.3d 187
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 3530

Citing Cases

People v. Rodriguez

The defendant's contention that his counsel's ineffectiveness affected the voluntariness of his plea is…

People v. Rodriguez

The defendant's contention that his counsel's ineffectiveness affected the voluntariness of his plea is…