People v. Barham

• Decision Date: 07 November 2018
• Docket Number: Ind. No. 647/16,2017–06682
• Citation: 84 N.Y.S.3d 906 (Mem),166 A.D.3d 643
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Lydell BARHAM, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

166 A.D.3d 643
84 N.Y.S.3d 906 (Mem)

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent,
v.
Lydell BARHAM, Appellant.

2017–06682
Ind. No. 647/16

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Submitted—June 21, 2018
November 7, 2018

Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, N.Y. (Alfred J. Cicale of counsel), for appellant.

Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Alfred J. Croce of counsel), for respondent.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., MARK C. DILLON, JEFFREY A. COHEN, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Martin I. Efman, J.), rendered April 12, 2017, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered is unpreserved for appellate review because he did not move to vacate his plea or otherwise raise the issue in the County Court (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ; People v. Pleitez–Raymundo, 160 A.D.3d 902, 71 N.Y.S.3d 886 ; People v. Spencer, 149 A.D.3d 983, 52 N.Y.S.3d 430 ). In any event, the record demonstrates that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered his plea of guilty (see People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 543, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646 ; People v. Cassadean, 160 A.D.3d 655, 72 N.Y.S.3d 575 ). Contrary to the defendant's contention, certain postplea assertions attributed to him in the presentence report did not call into question the voluntariness of the plea and did not obligate the court to conduct any further inquiry (see People v. Caceres, 155 A.D.3d 972, 63 N.Y.S.3d 899 ). Moreover, the defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel is without merit (see People v. Caban, 5 N.Y.3d 143, 152, 800 N.Y.S.2d 70, 833 N.E.2d 213 ; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400 ).

RIVERA, J.P., DILLON, COHEN and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.