People v. Moss

• Decision Date: 29 June 2010
• Citation: 74 A.D.3d 1360,903 N.Y.S.2d 265
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Frank MOSS, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

903 N.Y.S.2d 265

74 A.D.3d 1360

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Frank MOSS, appellant.

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

June 29, 2010.

Del Atwell, East Hampton, N.Y., for appellant.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.), rendered June 30, 2009,convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

To the extent that the defendant's contentions regarding the effectiveness of his attorney involve matter dehors the record, they may not be reviewed on direct appeal ( see People v. Moss, 70 A.D.3d 862, 894 N.Y.S.2d 123; People v. Vasquez, 40 A.D.3d 1134, 1135, 837 N.Y.S.2d 693). Insofar as we are able to review the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the record demonstrates that he received an advantageous plea and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel ( see People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397, 404, 633 N.Y.S.2d 270, 657 N.E.2d 265; People v. Hughes, 62 A.D.3d 1026, 878 N.Y.S.2d 911). Furthermore, the record does not support the defendant's contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel under the United States Constitution ( see Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203; Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674; People v. McDonald, 1 N.Y.3d 109, 113-114, 769 N.Y.S.2d 781, 802 N.E.2d 131).

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

RIVERA, J.P., FLORIO, DICKERSON, CHAMBERS and LOTT, JJ., concur.