People v Barton

People v Barton 2015 NY Slip Op 02523 Decided on March 26, 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: March 26, 2015
106183

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

v

ROBERT BARTON, Appellant.

Calendar Date: February 9, 2015
Before: Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Egan Jr. and Clark, JJ.

Donnial K. Hinds, Albany, for appellant.

P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Brittany L. Grome of counsel), for respondent.

Lahtinen, J.P.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (McDonough, J.), rendered July 31, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of assault in the second degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to assault in the second degree in full satisfaction of a three-count indictment and waived his right to appeal. Prior to being sentenced, defendant moved to withdraw his plea. County Court denied the motion and thereafter sentenced defendant, as a second felony offender, to three years in prison, to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.

We affirm. Contrary to defendant's contention, the plea colloquy and the counseled written waiver executed by defendant reveal that he knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his conviction and sentence (see People v Munger, 117 AD3d 1343 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1040 [2014]; People v Osgood, 111 AD3d 1029, 1030 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1089 [2014]).

As to defendant's plea, the record reflects that County Court fully informed defendant of the terms of the plea agreement during the plea colloquy, including the negotiated sentence of three years in prison and five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant affirmed that he understood the terms prior to entering his plea, that he had been provided ample time to confer with counsel and that he was satisfied with his representation, and there is nothing in the record that casts doubt upon counsel's effectiveness (see People v Little, 92 AD3d 1036, 1037 [2012]; People v Graham-Harrison, 272 AD2d 780, 781 [2000]). Defendant's unsubstantiated claim of innocence was contradicted by his plea, and County Court was within its discretion to reject it [*2](see People v Griffin, 89 AD3d 1235, 1236-1237 [2011]; People v Davis, 250 AD2d 939, 940-941 [1998]). Finally, defendant's contention that he was advised by defense counsel that he would be sentenced to two years in prison if he pleaded guilty involved a matter outside of the record (see People v Ramos, 63 NY2d 640-642 [1984]; People v Johnson, 77 AD3d 986, 986 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 743 [2011]). Accordingly, we find that County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his plea.

McCarthy, Egan Jr. and Clark, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.