THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JASON TINSLEY, Appellant.
Indictment No. 03-01077 and Indictment No. 03-01559
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
2006
[820 NYS2d 305-]
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve his contention that his pleas of guilty were invalid (see People v Clarke, 93 NY2d 904, 905 [1999]; People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636, 637 [1983]; People v Thomas, 262 AD2d 588, 589 [1999]). In any event, the record demonstrates that the defendant’s pleas of guilty were knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 17 [1983]).
The defendant’s contention that, in light of his assertions of innocence in the presentence investigation report, the court should have conducted a further inquiry before imposing sentence is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Pellegrino, supra; People v Steed, 133 AD2d 433, 434 [1987]). In any event, the defendant’s post-plea assertions of innocence do not warrant vacating his pleas (see People v Dixon, 29 NY2d 55, 57 [1971]; People v Eaton, 14 AD3d 577 [2005]; People v Richardson, 13 AD3d 561 [2004]).
Based on this record, defense counsel’s statements at sentencing did not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel (cf. People v Caple, 279 AD2d 635 [2001]).
Miller, J.P., Ritter, Luciano, Spolzino and Dillon, JJ., concur.
