People v. LoperPeople v. Loper
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice and on the law by vacating the sentence imposed and as modified the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to Steuben County Court for the filing of a predicate felony offender statement and resentencing.
Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the third degree (
With respect to defendant‘s contention in appeal No. 1 that the court erred in failing to permit him to withdraw his guilty plea, defendant abandoned that contention inasmuch as he withdrew his pro se motion to withdraw his plea (see People v Mower, 97 NY2d 239, 246 [2002]; People v Robbins, 83 AD3d 1531, 1531 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 821 [2011]). Defendant‘s further contention in appeal No. 1 that he was denied effective assistance of counsel “does not survive his guilty plea . . . because there was no showing 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 Russell, 55 AD3d 1314, 1314 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 930 [2009]; see People v Lugg, 108 AD3d 1074, 1075 [2013]). In any event, defendant received “an advantageous plea and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel” (People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]; see People v Davis, 99 AD3d 1228, 1229 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1010 [2013]). We reject defendant‘s contention in appeal No. 2 that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. We conclude that defendant did not “demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations” for defense counsel‘s failure to introduce facts in opposition to the People‘s recitation of the facts at the nonjury trial on stipulated facts (People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; see People v Howard, 101 AD3d 1749, 1750-1751 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 944 [2013]).
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention in each appeal that the People failed to comply with the procedural requirements of
SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, SCONIERS AND WHALEN, JJ.