People v Sicilia (Frank)

[*1] People v Sicilia (Frank) 2005 NY Slip Op 51928(U) [10 Misc 3d 129(A)] Decided on November 22, 2005 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on November 22, 2005
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: November 22, 2005 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE TERM : 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS PRESENT : RUDOLPH, P.J., ANGIOLILLO and TANENBAUM, JJ.
2004-315 W CR

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Frank Sicilia, Appellant.

Appeal from judgments of the City Court of Mount Vernon, Westchester County (William Edwards, J.), rendered July 27, 2004. The judgments convicted defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the second degree and driving while ability impaired by drugs.

Judgments of conviction unanimously affirmed.

At the time of his plea, defendant waived his right to appeal. However, contrary to the People's argument, said waiver did not foreclose review of the contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel (see People v Manzullo, 14 AD3d 717 [2005]).

Contrary to defendant's contention, the record reveals that he received meaningful legal representation under both federal and state standards (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 687-690 [1984]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).
"In the context of a guilty plea, a defendant has been afforded meaningful representation when he or she receives 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 Reels, 17 AD3d 488 [2005]). In the case at bar, defendant received an advantageous plea and his dissatisfaction with counsel is belied by the record. In any event, defendant's objection was insufficient to have warranted substitution of assigned counsel (see Reels, 17 AD3d at 489). In addition, the contention raised on appeal regarding the denial of his application for an order directing a blood and urine test is unreviewable since he waived the right to appeal any motions made by him (see People v McGuffie, 294 AD2d 617 [2002]; People v McBryde, 226 AD2d 156 [*2][1996]).
Decision Date: November 22, 2005