People v Monroe

People v Monroe 2015 NY Slip Op 01194 Decided on February 11, 2015 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: February 11, 2015
105609

[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

v

JAMIE MONROE, Appellant.

Calendar Date: January 12, 2015
Before: McCarthy, J.P., Lynch, Devine and Clark, JJ.

John P.M. Wappett, Public Defender, Lake George (Nellie R. Halloran of counsel), for appellant.

Kathleen B. Hogan, District Attorney, Lake George (Emilee B. Davenport of counsel), for respondent.

McCarthy, J.P.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Warren County (Hall Jr., J.), rendered August 15, 2012, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

In full satisfaction of a three-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to a single count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and waived her right to appeal. County Court indicated that it would consider whether to order substance abuse treatment after reviewing the presentence investigation report, but did not promise that treatment would be ordered. Thereafter, the court sentenced defendant, a second felony offender, to a prison term of four years to be followed by

three years of postrelease supervision. The court declined defendant's request to order substance abuse treatment, noting that defendant had failed in several prior treatment programs. Defendant appeals.

Defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal, which she does not challenge, bars her claims that her sentence was harsh and excessive, and that County Court should have directed further substance abuse treatment (see People v Borst, 121 AD3d 1424, 1425 [2014]; People v Smith, 112 AD3d 1232, 1232 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1203 [2014]). Similarly, that waiver bars her claim of ineffective assistance of counsel inasmuch as she does not contend that the alleged ineffective assistance impacted the voluntariness of her plea (see People v Livziey, 117 [*2]AD3d 1341, 1342 [2014]; People v Slingerland, 101 AD3d 1265, 1267 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1104 [2013]).

Lynch, Devine and Clark, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.