People v. Oquendo

• Decision Date: 23 March 2010
• Citation: 71 A.D.3d 1052,2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 02586,896 N.Y.S.2d 690
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,v.Jose OQUENDO, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

71 A.D.3d 1052

896 N.Y.S.2d 690

2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 02586

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Jose OQUENDO, appellant.

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

March 23, 2010.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERERobert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (Alfred J. Cicale of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Ronnie Jane Lamm of counsel), for respondent.

Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.), both rendered June 8, 2006, convicting him of assault in the first degree under Indictment No. 2760–05, and conspiracy in the second degree under Indictment No. 473A–06, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.

The record of the plea proceeding reveals that the defendant pleaded guilty knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently ( see People v. McPherson, 60 A.D.3d 872, 875 N.Y.S.2d 539). Insofar as the defendant's*691 complaints about counsel rest on matters dehors the record, they are not reviewable on direct appeal ( see People v. Yagudaev, 70 A.D.3d 984, 893 N.Y.S.2d 873). To the extent that the record permits review of the defendant's claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel, the defendant received meaningful representation ( see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674; People v. Henry, 95 N.Y.2d 563, 564, 721 N.Y.S.2d 577, 744 N.E.2d 112; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).

The defendant's claims regarding the content of the presentence report and the conduct of the court are not preserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05 [2] ) and, in any event, are without merit.

The sentences imposed were not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675; People v. Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816, 475 N.Y.S.2d 351).