05; People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726; People v Trent, 74 AD3d 1370; People v LeGrady, 50 AD3d 1059; People v Jaeger, 227 AD2d 501). In any event, his contention that he was coerced into pleading guilty because he did not have adequate time to consult with counsel and his family is belied by the record, and is contrary to his express representations at the plea proceeding ( see People v Oyague, 237 AD2d 311; People v Sampson, 156 AD2d 492, 493; People v Riley, 120 AD2d 752). The defendant cannot complain that the sentence imposed was excessive ( see People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816, 817), as the sentence imposed was less than that which was promised.

The defendant's contention that her plea of guilty was not voluntary because she did not have enough time to contemplate the amount of restitution that was included in the terms of her plea agreement is unpreserved for appellate review since she did not move to withdraw her plea on that basis ( see People v Bolton, 63 AD3d 1087; People v Scoca, 38 AD3d 801; People v Velazquez, 21 AD3d 388). In any event, the defendant entered her plea after discussing the issue of restitution with competent counsel ( see People v Oyague, 237 AD2d 311; People v Sampson, 156 AD2d 492, 493; People v Riley, 120 AD2d 752). The defendant's remaining contentions are either waived, forfeited, or based on matter dehors the record ( see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248; People v Petgen, 55 NY2d 529, 535 n 3 [1982]; People v Bravo, 72 AD3d 697, lv denied 15 NY3d 747; People v Burton, 69 AD3d 644).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a plea of guilty of attempted rape in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 130.35). Contrary to the contention of defendant, County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw the plea ( see generally People v Thomas, 39 AD3d 1197, 1199, lv denied 9 NY3d 869). Indeed, the record of the plea proceeding belies the contention of defendant that he believed that he was pleading guilty to a different crime ( see People v Vinals, 2 AD3d 1210, 1211), as well as his contention that he was impaired by his use of an antidepressant prescription medication when he entered the plea ( see People v Oyague, 237 AD2d 311, lv denied 90 NY2d 862).

November 21, 2000. Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this court dated March 3, 199 7 (People v. Oyague, 237 A.D.2d 311), affirming a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered February 5, 1996. Ralph Oyague, Comstock, N.Y., appellant pro se.