People v Rossetti |
2008 NY Slip Op 07698 [55 AD3d 637] |
October 7, 2008 |
Appellate Division, Second Department |
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Raymond Rossetti, Appellant. |
—[*1]
Adam B. Levy, District Attorney, Carmel, N.Y. (Mary Jane MacCrae of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Putnam County (R.E. Miller, J.), rendered January 5, 2005, convicting him of assault in the first degree and driving while intoxicated, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to County Court, Putnam County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.
The defendant pleaded guilty to assault in the first degree and driving while intoxicated in exchange
for, inter alia, promised concurrent sentences of 10 years' imprisonment and 2
In his supplemental pro se brief, the defendant also argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The defendant's waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contentions that he was denied effective assistance of counsel except to the extent that the alleged ineffective assistance affected the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248 [2006]; People v Perez, 51 AD3d 1043 [2008]). Here, the only contention regarding the voluntariness of the defendant's plea is defense counsel's alleged failure to object to the enhanced sentence. However, review of the record reveals that defense counsel did, in fact, object to the enhanced sentence. Otherwise, the defendant received an advantageous plea, and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel (see People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397 [1995]; People v Boodhoo, 191 AD2d 448 [1993]). Thus, the defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Santucci and Carni, JJ., concur.