Opinion
KA 01-00082
May 3, 2002.
Appeal from a judgment of Herkimer County Court (Kirk, J.), entered July 19, 2000, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of attempted assault in the second degree.
JOHN A. HERBOWY, ROME, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
RICHARD REMP, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.
MICHAEL E. DALEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, HERKIMER (JACQUELYN M. ASNOE OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: PINE, J.P., WISNER, SCUDDER, GORSKI, AND LAWTON, JJ.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum:
County Court did not abuse its discretion in imposing an enhanced sentence without affording defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea. As part of the plea agreement, defendant unequivocally agreed to a no-arrest condition. Defendant was arrested while awaiting sentencing, and has not challenged the validity of that arrest ( cf. People v. Janick, 288 A.D.2d 885). Thus, the court did not err in enhancing the agreed-upon sentence, a five-year term of probation, to an indeterminate term of incarceration of 1 to 3 years ( see People v. Murphy, 224 A.D.2d 1023, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 1022; see also People v. Taylor, 286 A.D.2d 916, lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 688). The enhanced sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. The contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel does not survive his guilty plea where, as here, "[t]here is no showing that the plea bargaining process was infected by any allegedly ineffective assistance or that defendant entered the plea because of his attorney['s] allegedly poor performance" ( People v. Burke, 256 A.D.2d 1244, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 851).
The contentions of defendant in his pro se supplemental brief that the judge was biased against defendant and should have recused himself are not preserved for our review on this appeal from the judgment of conviction ( see CPL 470.05; People v. Mileto, 290 A.D.2d 877; People v. Darling, 276 A.D.2d 922, 924, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 733) and, in any event, are lacking in merit. "There was no statutory basis to prevent the Judge from hearing the case ( see, Judiciary Law § 14), and thus the matter was addressed to the discretion and personal conscience of the Judge" ( People v. Nenni, 269 A.D.2d 785, 786, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 801; see People v. Moreno, 70 N.Y.2d 403, 405-406).