People v. Sorino

• Decision Date: 08 March 2011
• Citation: 82 A.D.3d 911,918 N.Y.S.2d 348
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Anthony SORINO, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

918 N.Y.S.2d 348 82 A.D.3d 911 The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Anthony SORINO, appellant. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York. March 8, 2011.

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

Francis D. Phillips II, District Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Andrew R. Kass of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Freehill, J.), rendered December 21, 2009, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

By pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited appellate review of any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel that did not directly involve the negotiation of the plea ( see People v. Petgen, 55 N.Y.2d 529, 535 n. 3, 450 N.Y.S.2d 299, 435 N.E.2d 669; People v. Collier, 71 A.D.3d 909, 910, 895 N.Y.S.2d 848; People v. Curry, 56 A.D.3d 489, 865 N.Y.S.2d 915; People v. Scalercio, 10 A.D.3d 697, 781 N.Y.S.2d 745). To the extent that the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel does not relate to the voluntariness of the plea, the defendant's valid and unrestricted waiver of his right to appeal foreclosed appellate review of that claim ( see People v. Ramos, 7 N.Y.3d 737, 738, 819 N.Y.S.2d 853, 853 N.E.2d 222; People v. Aguayo, 73 A.D.3d 938, 939, 899 N.Y.S.2d 878; People v. Taubenkraut, 48 A.D.3d 598, 849 N.Y.S.2d 896). To the extent that the defendant is claiming that his counsel was ineffective such that the voluntariness of his plea was affected, this contention is without merit ( see Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58-59, 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. McDonald, 1 N.Y.3d 109, 113-115, 769 N.Y.S.2d 781, 802 N.E.2d 131).

The defendant's waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his claim that his sentence was excessive ( see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145; People v. Hidalgo, 91 N.Y.2d 733, 675 N.Y.S.2d 327, 698 N.E.2d 46).

SKELOS, J.P., COVELLO, ENG, CHAMBERS and SGROI, JJ., concur.