Although defendant's remaining contentions have been examined and are meritless, we are nevertheless obliged to remit for resentencing. The sentencing transcript reflects that County Court imposed a single sentence upon defendant and "failed to pronounce sentence separately on each of the two counts [of] which [she was convicted], as required by CPL 380.20" (People v Volfson, 69 A.D.3d 1123, 1125 [2010]; see People v Sturgis, 69 N.Y.2d 816, 817-818 [1987]). As a result, the matter must be remitted so that County Court can pronounce sentence on each count (see People v Disotell, 123 A.D.3d 1230, 1232 [2014], lv denied 25 N.Y.3d 1162 [2015]; People v Volfson, 69 A.D.3d at 1125).
To the contrary, the only information before us concerning the reason the prior offer was allowed to expire comes from defendant's own statement at sentencing whereby he indicated that it was his decision to reject the offer based upon a television program he viewed in jail, as well as advice he received from other inmates who told him that he would get a better plea offer if he waited. Thus, the record proof does not support the claim that defendant was not afforded meaningful representation or that counsel failed to fully explain the consequences of declining the initial offer ( see People v. Volfson, 69 A.D.3d 1123, 1124, 893 N.Y.S.2d 376 [2010] ). To the extent that defendant's claims could be otherwise demonstrated by proof outside the record, they would more adequately be addressed by way of a CPL article 440 motion ( see id. at 1125, 893 N.Y.S.2d 376).
The defendant's contention that the County Court failed to pronounce the amount of restitution at sentencing in violation of CPL 380.20 is not foreclosed by his waiver of the right to appeal or his failure to preserve the issue (see People v Nieves, 2 NY3d 310, 315; People v Samms, 95 NY2d 52, 56; People v Lawson, 124 AD3d 1249; People v Volfson, 69 AD3d 1123, 1125; People v Pump, 67 AD3d 1041, 1042). Since the County Court failed to pronounce the sentences of restitution in open court, the sentences must be vacated and the matter remitted to the County Court, Orange County, for resentencing in accordance with CPL 380.20 (see Penal Law § 60.27[1]; People v Guerrero, 12 NY3d 45, 47; People v Fuller, 57 NY2d 152, 158-159; People v Rose, 120 AD3d 593, 594; People v McGhee, 96 AD3d 786; People v Bauer, 229 AD2d 502, 502-503).
ORDERED that the judgments are modified, on the law, by vacating the sentences imposed; as so modified, the judgments are affirmed, and the matters are remitted to the County Court, Orange County, for resentencing in accordance herewith. The defendant's contention that the County Court failed to pronounce the amount of restitution at sentencing in violation of CPL 380.20 is not foreclosed by his waiver of the right to appeal or his failure to preserve the issue (see People v. Nieves, 2 N.Y.3d 310, 315, 778 N.Y.S.2d 751, 811 N.E.2d 13 ; People v. Samms, 95 N.Y.2d 52, 56, 710 N.Y.S.2d 310, 731 N.E.2d 1118 ; People v. Lawson, 124 A.D.3d 1249, 999 N.Y.S.2d 640 ; People v. Volfson, 69 A.D.3d 1123, 1125, 893 N.Y.S.2d 376 ; People v. Pump, 67 A.D.3d 1041, 1042, 889 N.Y.S.2d 105 ). Since the County Court failed to pronounce the sentences of restitution in open court, the sentences must be vacated and the matter remitted to the County Court, Orange County, for resentencing in accordance with CPL 380.20 (see Penal Law § 60.27[1] ; People v. Guerrero, 12 N.Y.3d 45, 47, 876 N.Y.S.2d 687, 904 N.E.2d 823 ; People v. Fuller, 57 N.Y.2d 152, 158–159, 455 N.Y.S.2d 253, 441 N.E.2d 563 ; People v. Rose, 120 A.D.3d 593, 594, 990 N.Y.S.2d 832 ; People v. McGhee, 96 A.D.3d 786, 945 N.Y.S.2d 566 ; People v. Bauer, 229 A.D.2d 502, 502–503, 645 N.Y.S.2d 323 ).
Contrary to defendant's further contention, we conclude that he was afforded meaningful representation inasmuch as he “ ‘receive[d] an advantageous plea and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel’ ” (People v. Parson, 122 A.D.3d 1441, 1443, 997 N.Y.S.2d 198, quoting People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397, 404, 633 N.Y.S.2d 270, 657 N.E.2d 265). To the extent that defendant's contention is based upon matters outside the record, those matters should be addressed by a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 ( see People v. Volfson, 69 A.D.3d 1123, 1125, 893 N.Y.S.2d 376). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
County Court resentenced her, however, on counts 1, 8, 38 and 40. Inasmuch as County Court failed to pronounce sentence upon each of the counts to which defendant pleaded guilty, remittal for resentencing is necessary ( seeCPL 380.20; People v. Sturgis, 69 N.Y.2d 816, 817–818, 513 N.Y.S.2d 961, 506 N.E.2d 532 [1987]; People v. Volfson, 69 A.D.3d 1123, 1125, 893 N.Y.S.2d 376 [2010] ).ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed; matter remitted to the County Court of St. Lawrence County for resentencing; and, as so modified, affirmed.
Defendant's valid waiver of appeal precludes us from addressing his argument that his agreed-upon sentence is harsh and excessive ( see People v Houck, 74 AD3d 1476, 1477; People v Walley, 63 AD3d 1284, 1286). While surviving his waiver of the right to appeal, defendant's contention that his plea was rendered involuntary by the ineffective assistance of counsel is unpreserved for our review due to defendant's failure to move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction ( see People v Davis, 74 AD3d 1490, 1490, lv denied 15 NY3d 850; People v Volfson, 69 AD3d 1123, 1124; People v Scitz, 67 AD3d 1251, 1251-1252). County Court erred by setting a restitution amount without conducting a restitution hearing because there was insufficient evidence to determine the victim's loss.
County Court sentenced him pursuant to the plea agreement to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 7½ years, with three years of postrelease supervision. Following defendant's appeal, this Court affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence on the ground that County Court had inadvertently failed to pronounce sentence on each of the two counts ( People v Volfson, 69 AD3d 1123, 1125). Thereafter, County Court resentenced defendant to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 3½ to 7 years on the forgery count and 7½ years in prison on the criminal possession of marihuana count, to be followed by three years postrelease supervision.
We affirm. Initially, although defendant challenges the validity of his appeal waiver, his claim that his plea was not knowingly, intelligently or voluntarily entered survives any waiver of the right to appeal ( see People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10; People v Volfson, 69 AD3d 1123, 1124). Specifically, defendant contends that his plea was not knowingly entered due to his alleged confusion as to how his sentence for this crime would run with respect to a pending sentence for unrelated crimes in Rensselaer County Court.
To the extent that defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim impacts upon the voluntariness of his plea, it is not foreclosed by his valid appeal waiver ( see People v Leigh, 71 AD3d 1288, 1288, lv denied 15 NY3d 775). Such a claim is nonetheless similarly unpreserved given defendant's failure to move to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction ( see People v Volfson, 69 AD3d 1123, 1124). In that regard, defendant was afforded the opportunity to withdraw his plea at sentencing, and he repeatedly informed County Court that he did not desire to do so.