OPINION OF THE COURT
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
On March 6, 2008, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, criminal sale of a firearm in the third degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. Two months later, defendant, with new defense counsel, moved to withdraw the plea arguing, among other things, that the defense of entrapment had been established and he was innocent as a matter of law. Relying on our decision in People v McDonald (
On appeal to the Appellate Division, defendant further argued that his plea should be vacated pursuant to the then-recent decision Padilla v Kentucky (559 US —,
We agree with the Appellate Division that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea. “The established rule is that a guilty plea will be upheld as valid if it was entered voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently” (People v Fiumefreddo,
Further, while Padilla may support vacatur of the plea based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, in this case the claim is predicated on hearsay matters and facts not found in the record on appeal. The claim should be raised in a postconviction application under CPL article 440, where the basis of the claim may be fully developed (see People v Brown,
Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
