Opinion
July 29, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.).
Judgments affirmed.
We reject defendant's contention that the court improperly denied his motion to withdraw his pleas of guilty inasmuch as the record reveals that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his rights and pleaded guilty ( see, People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9; People v. Sprow, 104 A.D.2d 1056). The record provided no grounds for the withdrawal of those pleas ( see, People v. Ramos, 63 N.Y.2d 640, 642-643). If defendant was dissatisfied with the terms of the proffered pleas his remedy was to refrain from pleading guilty ( People v. Jones, 81 A.D.2d 22, 23-24). We find defendant's contentions that he was not adequately advised of his alternatives and the consequences of his pleas to be without merit. The record reveals that he was specifically advised of all the rights he was waiving by pleading guilty, including his possible defense of entrapment. Contrary to his contention that he was informed that he would receive mandatory maximum sentences if convicted after trial, we find that both the court and his attorney acted properly in advising him of the authorized maximum sentences which could have been imposed had he been convicted after trial. Brown, J.P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.