Opinion
392 KA 15-02150
04-22-2022
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Roosevelt SCOTT, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
TULLY RINCKEY PLLC, ROCHESTER (PETER J. PULLANO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (SCOTT MYLES OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
TULLY RINCKEY PLLC, ROCHESTER (PETER J. PULLANO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (SCOTT MYLES OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, LINDLEY, AND CURRAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of assault in the first degree ( Penal Law § 120.10 [1] ) and assault in the second degree (§ 120.05 [2]). We affirm.
Defendant contends that defense counsel was ineffective as a result of the alleged disagreements and disputes that occurred between the two during the course of the representation, which rendered defendant's decision to plead guilty involuntary. Defendant's contention survives his guilty plea "only insofar as he demonstrates that the plea bargaining process was infected by [the] allegedly ineffective assistance or that defendant entered the plea because of [his] attorney[’s] allegedly poor performance" ( People v. Rausch , 126 A.D.3d 1535, 1535, 6 N.Y.S.3d 863 [4th Dept. 2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 1149, 32 N.Y.S.3d 63, 51 N.E.3d 574 [2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Spencer , 170 A.D.3d 1614, 1615, 94 N.Y.S.3d 503 [4th Dept. 2019], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 974, 150 N.Y.S.3d 710, 172 N.E.3d 822 [2021] ; People v. Ware , 159 A.D.3d 1401, 1402, 72 N.Y.S.3d 676 [4th Dept. 2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1122, 81 N.Y.S.3d 382, 106 N.E.3d 765 [2018] ). Here, we conclude that, to the extent that it survives his guilty plea, defendant's contention lacks merit inasmuch as defendant "received an advantageous plea, and ‘nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel’ " ( People v. Shaw , 133 A.D.3d 1312, 1313, 19 N.Y.S.3d 449 [4th Dept. 2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 1150, 32 N.Y.S.3d 64, 51 N.E.3d 575 [2016], quoting People v. Ford , 86 N.Y.2d 397, 404, 633 N.Y.S.2d 270, 657 N.E.2d 265 [1995] ; see People v. Booth , 158 A.D.3d 1253, 1255, 70 N.Y.S.3d 704 [4th Dept. 2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1078, 79 N.Y.S.3d 100, 103 N.E.3d 1247 [2018] ).
Finally, contrary to defendant's further contention, we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.