Opinion
February 11, 1999
Appeal from the County Court of Broome County (Mathews, J.).
Defendant was charged with various drug-related crimes stemming from his participation in a narcotics distribution conspiracy. In full satisfaction of the multicount indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to the crimes of conspiracy in the second degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree in exchange for agreed-upon concurrent sentences of 10 to 20 years on the conspiracy count and 10 years to life on the criminal possession count. As a condition of his guilty plea, defendant waived his right to appeal all issues including those relating to sentencing. Thereafter, County Court adjudicated defendant a second felony offender and imposed the agreed-upon sentences, prompting this appeal by defendant.
We affirm. Initially, defendant's waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel except to the extent that the alleged ineffectiveness affected the voluntariness of his plea ( see, People v. Marziale, 182 A.D.2d 1035, 1036, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 835). Our review of the record, however, discloses nothing to support the contention that counsel's alleged failure to explore mitigating sentencing factors rendered defendant's plea involuntary. In any event, considering the favorable plea bargain negotiated by counsel and defendant's statement during the plea allocution that he was satisfied with his representation ( see, People v. Wright, 232 A.D.2d 898; People v. Chevalier, 226 A.D.2d 925, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 934), the record as a whole demonstrates that defendant received meaningful representation.
Finally, inasmuch as defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal as a part of his guilty plea, his contention that the sentences were harsh and excessive has not been preserved for our review ( see, People v. Ennis, 254 A.D.2d 642; People v. Poleto, 252 A.D.2d 670). In any event, were we to consider the argument, we would find it to be meritless. Given defendant's criminal history, which included a drug-related conviction, together with the fact that defendant agreed to the sentences as a part of the plea agreement, we would find that the sentences imposed were neither harsh nor excessive and that there are no extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction thereof in the interest of justice ( see, People v. Martinez, 243 A.D.2d 923, 925; People v. Van Nordstrand, 238 A.D.2d 634, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 1015). We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Crew III, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Graffeo, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.