People v. Mullen

• Decision Date: 05 October 2010
• Citation: 908 N.Y.S.2d 350,77 A.D.3d 686
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Corilynn MULLEN, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

908 N.Y.S.2d 350

77 A.D.3d 686

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Corilynn MULLEN, appellant.

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

Oct. 5, 2010.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered February 19, 2008, convicting her of grand larceny in the second degree, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Michael G. Paul, New City, N.Y., for appellant.

Francis D. Phillips II, District Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Robert H. Middlemiss of counsel), for respondent.

The County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw her plea of guilty based on her claims of innocence, coercion, and ineffective assistance of counsel since her claims were belied by her statements made at the plea proceedings ( see CPL 220.60[3]; People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 543, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646; People v. Frederick, 45 N.Y.2d 520, 525, 410 N.Y.S.2d 555, 382 N.E.2d 1332; People v. Gedin, 46 A.D.3d 701, 847 N.Y.S.2d 231; People v. Brown, 13 A.D.3d 548, 549, 786 N.Y.S.2d 583 ; People v. Abney, 10 A.D.3d 617, 781 N.Y.S.2d 456).

The defendant's contention that her plea of guilty was not voluntary because she did not have enough time to contemplate the amount of restitution that was included in the terms of her plea agreement is unpreserved for appellate review since she did not move to withdraw her plea on that basis ( see People v. Bolton, 63 A.D.3d 1087, 880 N.Y.S.2d 558; People v. Scoca, 38 A.D.3d 801, 832 N.Y.S.2d 604; People v. Velazquez, 21 A.D.3d 388, 798 N.Y.S.2d 919). In any event, the defendant entered her plea after discussing the issue of restitution with competent counsel ( see People v. Oyague, 237 A.D.2d 311, 655 N.Y.S.2d 377; People v. Sampson, 156 A.D.2d 492, 493, 548 N.Y.S.2d 916; People v. Riley, 120 A.D.2d 752, 503 N.Y.S.2d 71).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either waived, forfeited, or based on matter dehors the record ( see People v. Ramos, 7 N.Y.3d 737, 819 N.Y.S.2d 853, 853 N.E.2d 222; People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145; People v. Petgen, 55 N.Y.2d 529, 535 n. 3, 450 N.Y.S.2d 299, 435 N.E.2d 669; People v. Bravo, 72 A.D.3d 697, 899 N.Y.S.2d 280, lv. denied 15 N.Y.3d 747, 906 N.Y.S.2d 820, 933 N.E.2d 219; People v. Burton, 69 A.D.3d 644, 891 N.Y.S.2d 292).

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

MASTRO, J.P., FLORIO, DICKERSON, BELEN and LOTT, JJ., concur.