People v. Grant

• Decision Date: 22 October 2014
• Docket Number: 2013-08619, Ind. No. 19/13.
• Citation: 121 A.D.3d 1016,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 07181,994 N.Y.S.2d 416
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Melquan GRANT, also known as “Slim,” appellant.

121 A.D.3d 1016

994 N.Y.S.2d 416

2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 07181

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent

v.Melquan GRANT, also known as “Slim,” appellant.

2013-08619, Ind. No. 19/13.

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

Oct. 22, 2014.

Salvatore C. Adamo, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Joan H. McCarthy of counsel), for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, SHERI S. ROMAN, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Greller, J.), rendered August 15, 2013, convicting him of criminal sale 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 knowing, voluntary, and intelligent is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw the plea (see People v. Pryor, 11 A.D.3d 565, 782 N.Y.S.2d 803 ). In any event, the plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered (see People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 543, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646 ; People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ; People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 17, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170 ).

The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel during the plea bargaining process, as defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 ; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400 ). To the extent that the defendant argues that his trial counsel should have made a motion to compel the disclosure of a confidential informant's identity prior to entering into the plea bargain, the defendant forfeited appellate review of that claim because it does not directly involve the plea and sentence negotiation (see People v. Bennett, 115 A.D.3d 973, 982 N.Y.S.2d 554 ).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 85, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).