Opinion
April 25, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Cohen, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claim that he was not afforded the effective assistance of trial counsel is based largely on matters which are dehors the record and, thus, are not reviewable on direct appeal (see, People v. Navedo, 137 A.D.2d 726; People v Robinson, 122 A.D.2d 173, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 1003; People v Wolcott, 111 A.D.2d 943). The appropriate remedy is a postconviction proceeding pursuant to CPL 440.10, provided the statutory requirements are met (CPL 440.30; see, People v Brown, 45 N.Y.2d 852; People v. Navedo, supra; People v. Wolcott, supra). Insofar as we are able to review the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we find that defense counsel's performance amply met the standard of meaningful representation as evidenced, inter alia, by the favorable plea bargain negotiated by counsel, which permitted the defendant to plead guilty to a reduced charge in exchange for the minimum permissible sentence which could be imposed in view of the defendant's status as a second felony offender (see, e.g., People v. Kelsch, 96 A.D.2d 677). Since the defendant was sentenced to the minimum permissible sentence he could have received as a second felony offender, the sentence imposed cannot be considered unduly harsh or excessive so as to constitute an abuse of discretion (see, People v. Brown, 46 A.D.2d 255). Mangano, J.P., Kunzeman, Rubin, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.