People v. Wagstaff

• Decision Date: 11 May 2010
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Floyd WAGSTAFF, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

899 N.Y.S.2d 871
73 A.D.3d 955

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Floyd WAGSTAFF, appellant.

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

May 11, 2010.

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

Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Richard Longworth Hecht and Anthony J. Servino of counsel; Justin Tolbert on the brief), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Molea, J.), rendered July 9, 2009, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts) and reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel is not properly before this Court since it is based upon matter that is outside the record ( see 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; People v. LeGrady, 50 A.D.3d 1059, 1060, 856 N.Y.S.2d 224; People v. Ross, 41 AD3d 870, 871, 841 N.Y.S.2d 310; People v. Villacreses, 12 A.D.3d 624, 626, 785 N.Y.S.2d 103).

Since the defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive the sentence which was thereafter actually imposed, he has no basis to now complain that the sentence imposed was excessive ( see People v. De Alvarez, 59 A.D.3d 732, 873 N.Y.S.2d 724; People v. Fanelli, 8 A.D.3d 296, 777 N.Y.S.2d 320; People v. Mejia, 6 A.D.3d 630, 631, 774 N.Y.S.2d 801; People v. Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816, 475 N.Y.S.2d 351). In any event, the sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

SKELOS, J.P., DILLON, ANGIOLILLO, ENG and SGROI, JJ., concur.