County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion of defendant to withdraw his guilty plea ( see CPL 220.60), which was entered just prior to jury selection. The record establishes that alleged pressure upon defendant to take the plea despite his assertion that he had not shot the victim did not materially affect the voluntariness of defendant's plea inasmuch as defendant pleaded guilty to robbery in the first degree under subdivision (2) of Penal Law ยง 160.15 ( see People v. Wright, 196 A.D.2d 700). Defendant entered a plea that was knowing and voluntary ( see People v. McDowell, 242 A.D.2d 860, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 876, 1010), and his "subsequent unsubstantiated claim of innocence did not require vacatur of the plea" ( People v. Hill, 146 A.D.2d 823, 825, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 1016). The court also properly denied defendant's motion to suppress a written statement given to the police.
Defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea of guilty or vacate the judgment of conviction on the ground that his plea was not voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently entered and thus failed to preserve his present contention for our review ( see, People v. Harrell, 278 A.D.2d 852; People v. Tufino, 277 A.D.2d 986). In any event, we conclude that the plea was voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently entered ( see, People v. McDowell, 242 A.D.2d 860, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 876, 1010). The further contention of defendant that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel based on defense counsel's failure to review possible defenses for trial concerns matters outside the record and is therefore properly addressed in a CPL 440.10 motion ( see, People v. Snitzel, 270 A.D.2d 836, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 804).