Opinion
108501
11-15-2018
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jonathan MONFORTE, Also Known as J–5, Appellant.
Craig Meyerson, Peru, for appellant. Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Peter H. Willis of counsel), for respondent.
Craig Meyerson, Peru, for appellant.
Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Peter H. Willis of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Garry, P.J., McCarthy, Lynch, Aarons and Rumsey, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Lynch, J.
Defendant waived indictment and agreed to be prosecuted by a superior court information charging him with manslaughter in the first degree. He pleaded guilty to this crime and waived his right to appeal, both orally and in writing. Defendant was subsequently sentenced, in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, to 25 years in prison followed by five years of postrelease supervision. He now appeals.
Defendant's sole claim is that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his counsel did not properly investigate his case or undertake appropriate procedural steps in furtherance of his defense. To the extent that this claim impacts upon the voluntariness of defendant's guilty plea, it survives his uncontested waiver of the right to appeal but is unpreserved for our review absent evidence of an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v. White, 164 A.D.3d 959, 960, 82 N.Y.S.3d 247 [2018] ; People v. Gardiner, 159 A.D.3d 1233, 1234, 73 N.Y.S.3d 643 [2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1082, 79 N.Y.S.3d 103, 103 N.E.3d 1250 [2018] ). As defendant did not make any statements during the plea colloquy that were inconsistent with his guilt or otherwise called into question the voluntariness of his plea, the narrow exception to the preservation requirement is inapplicable (see People v. Reap, 163 A.D.3d 1287, 1288, 81 N.Y.S.3d 654 [2018] ; People v. Smith, 155 A.D.3d 1244, 1245, 65 N.Y.S.3d 580 [2017] ). Finally, the balance of defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim implicates matters outside of the record that, in turn, are more properly the subject of a CPL article 440 motion (see People v. Smith, 155 A.D.3d at 1246, 65 N.Y.S.3d 580 ; People v. Williams, 150 A.D.3d 1549, 1551, 56 N.Y.S.3d 357 [2017] ).
Garry, P.J., McCarthy, Aarons and Rumsey, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.