People v. Ronconi
| Decision Date | 21 June 2011 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,v.Robert RONCONI, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Michael G. Paul, New City, N.Y., for appellant.William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Joan H. McCarthy of counsel), for respondent.WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, ARIEL E. BELEN, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered November 21, 2008, convicting him of scheme to defraud in the first 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 because he did not move to withdraw the plea ( see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5; People v. Nowell, 46 A.D.3d 707, 848 N.Y.S.2d 242; People v. Martinez, 33 A.D.3d 631, 632, 821 N.Y.S.2d 660). In any event, the basis of this claim, that the County Court failed to inform him that he would receive an enhanced sentence if he failed to comply with the conditions of the plea agreement, is belied by the plea proceeding, which shows that he acknowledged and understood that he would be subjected to an enhanced sentence if he failed to comply with the conditions of his plea agreement ( see People v. Butler, 49 A.D.3d 894, 895, 854 N.Y.S.2d 506; People v. Guerra, 291 A.D.2d 410, 411, 736 N.Y.S.2d 901; People v. Davis, 239 A.D.2d 356, 657 N.Y.S.2d 980). The defendant failed to comply with the condition that he not be rearrested before sentencing. Furthermore, at sentencing, the defendant voluntarily withdrew his challenge to the validity of the charge upon which the post-plea arrest was based after the court offered to hold a hearing, and he admitted that there was a legitimate basis for the post-plea arrest ( see People v. Brown, 70 A.D.3d 1047, 1048, 893 N.Y.S.2d 901, cert. denied ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 420, 178 L.Ed.2d 328).
To the extent that the defendant's contentions regarding any alleged ineffective assistance of counsel rest on matter dehors the record, they cannot be reviewed on direct appeal ( see People v. Sumahit, 72 A.D.3d 991, 898 N.Y.S.2d 510; People v. Ali, 55 A.D.3d 919, 865 N.Y.S.2d 579; People v. Drago, 50 A.D.3d 920, 855 N.Y.S.2d 252). Insofar as the contentions are reviewable, we find that the defendant received the effective assistance of counsel ( see Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59–60, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203; Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674; People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712–713, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584).
Since the enhanced sentence that was actually imposed was part of the negotiated plea agreement, the defendant has no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- People v. Rahman
- Losito v. Manlyn Dev. Group Inc.
-
People v. Corbett
...since he did not move to withdraw the plea (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ; People v. Ronconi, 85 A.D.3d 1063, 925 N.Y.S.2d 644 ). In any event, the defendant is not entitled to vacate his plea on the basis that he did not understand the severity of......