Opinion
December 14, 1987
Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Tisch, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant argues that his counsel's failure to request youthful offender treatment and to negotiate a plea involving a promise of a lesser sentence than that imposed denied him his right to effective assistance of counsel. We disagree. During the plea allocution the prosecutor indicated on the record that the People originally sought consecutive terms of imprisonment but as a result of negotiations agreed to support a plea to four counts in full satisfaction of the 12-count indictment and to a sentence of 10 to 20 years on the top count involving a plea to a class B armed violent felony offense. The maximum sentence the defendant faced on a conviction on the top count was 12 1/2 to 25 years (see, Penal Law § 70.02 [a]; [3] [a]; [4]). It is evident upon this record and in view of the seriousness of the crimes charged that defense counsel advised the defendant to accept the plea offer in order to reduce the defendant's sentencing exposure. In so doing, the defendant's attorney afforded the defendant meaningful representation, thus satisfying his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796; People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137).
Furthermore, because the sentence imposed was the result of a negotiated plea, the defendant cannot now complain that the sentence was unduly harsh or excessive (see, People v Perkins, 130 A.D.2d 521, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 716; People v Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816). Thompson, J.P., Niehoff, Eiber, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.