People v. Vonneida, 106589

• Decision Date: 23 July 2015
• Docket Number: 106589
• Citation: 130 A.D.3d 1322,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 06272,13 N.Y.S.3d 708
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Daryl E. VONNEIDA, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

130 A.D.3d 1322

13 N.Y.S.3d 708

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 06272

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent

v.Daryl E. VONNEIDA, Appellant.

106589

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

July 23, 2015.

John R. Trice, Elmira, for appellant.

Joseph G. Fazzary, District Attorney, Watkins Glen (John C. Tunney of counsel), for respondent.

Before: PETERS, P.J., McCARTHY, EGAN JR. and ROSE, JJ.

Opinion

McCARTHY, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schuyler County (Morris, J.), rendered December 19, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree (three counts).

Defendant was charged in a four-count indictment with repeated sex crimes against three children under the age of 13. In satisfaction thereof, he pleaded guilty to three counts of course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree. While there was no specific sentence commitment, defendant was promised that the sentences would run concurrently to the sentence to be imposed upon his convictions in federal court for production of child pornography and other crimes. He was thereafter sentenced to life imprisonment on the federal charges (United States v. Vonneida, 601 Fed.Appx. 38 [2d Cir.2015] ). County Court imposed a sentence of seven years on each count, to be served consecutively to one another but concurrently to the federal sentence. Defendant appeals.

Defendant contends that he did not receive the effective assistance of counsel in that counsel failed to pursue pretrial discovery and motions. “It is well settled that in the context of a guilty plea, a defendant has been afforded meaningful representation when he or she receives an advantageous plea and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel” (People v. Wares, 124 A.D.3d 1079, 1080, 2 N.Y.S.3d 270 [2015], lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 993, 10 N.Y.S.3d 536, 32 N.E.3d 973 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted] ). Failure to request a suppression hearing or to make a pretrial motion does not, by itself, constitute ineffective assistance, particularly in the absence of any basis upon which to conclude that a defendant had a colorable claim or that counsel's actions were not premised upon a legitimate strategy (see People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 709, 530 N.Y.S.2d 52, 525 N.E.2d 698 [1998] ; People v. Cooper, 126 A.D.3d 1046, 1047–1048, 4 N.Y.S.3d 392 [2015] ; cf. People v. Carnevale, 101 A.D.3d 1375, 1378–1379, 957 N.Y.S.2d 746 [2012] ). Defendant affirmed during the plea that he was “very satisfied” with counsel, who procured a favorable disposition with prison time concurrent to his federal sentence, and nothing in the record indicates a lack of meaningful representation (see People v. Caban, 5...