Opinion
December 21, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McInerney, J.).
Ordered that the judgment and order are affirmed.
On the appeal from the judgment of conviction, the defendant argues, inter alia, that a written statement to the police should have been suppressed since it was elicited after he requested to speak with his attorney. However, the record of the plea proceedings indicates that in return for the bargained-for plea, the defendant expressly waived his right to raise on appeal any question with regard to the admissibility of his confession. Accordingly, his argument on this issue must be rejected (see, People v Williams, 36 N.Y.2d 829, cert denied 423 U.S. 873).
The defendant further argues that his attorney was ineffective in failing to advise him of the defenses of entrapment and agency. We disagree. At the plea, the defendant expressly indicated that he had discussed these defenses with his attorney. In addition the court, during the plea proceeding, directed defense counsel to confer with the defendant "again" on this issue, and the record indicates that the attorney and the defendant did immediately thereafter confer. Accordingly, this argument must be rejected (see, People v Donovon, 107 A.D.2d 433).
Finally, we have reviewed the sentence imposed and find it, under the circumstances, to be fair and appropriate (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Bracken and Weinstein, JJ., concur.