People v. Alexander

May 5, 2009
Versions:62 A.D.3d 719
877 N.Y.S.2d 696

Ordered that the judgment rendered under superior court information No. 663/07 is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment rendered under indictment No. 2374/06 is modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed for the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant‘s contention, his pleas of guilty were knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered (see People v Garcia, 92 NY2d 869, 870 [1998]; People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]; People v Grimes, 35 AD3d 882, 883 [2006]).

The defendant‘s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel rests, in part, on matter dehors the record and, therefore, is not reviewable on direct appeal (see People v DeLuca, 45 AD3d 777 [2007]; People v Sanchez, 33 AD3d 633, 634 [2006]). To the extent the claim is reviewable on direct appeal, the record reveals that defense counsel provided the defendant with meaningful representation (see People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]).

However, as the People correctly concede, the sentencing court erred in imposing an additional sentence for the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree under indictment No. 2374/06, since the defendant did not plead guilty to that offense (see People v Rosario, 22 AD3d 871, 872 [2005]; People v Brown, 244 AD2d 348, 349 [1997]). Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Eng and Belen, JJ., concur.