Opinion
147-147A
February 5, 2002.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Wetzel, J.), rendered April 1, 1999, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second and third degrees, and sentencing him to consecutive terms of 7 years to life and 2 to 6 years, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about January 19, 2001, which denied defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment, unanimously affirmed.
ANN M. OLSON, for respondent.
CAROL A. ZELDIN, for defendant-appellant.
Before: Williams, J.P., Andrias, Rosenberger, Buckley, JJ.
Since defendant never moved to withdraw his plea, and since his motion to vacate judgment was made on other grounds, defendant's claim that his plea was coerced when the court informed him that it would be inclined to impose a sentence "upwards of 20 years" upon a conviction after trial is unpreserved (see, People v. Ali, 96 N.Y.2d 840; People v. Hopeton, 256 A.D.2d 81), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the court's statement did not render the plea involuntary since defendant was indicted on multiple charges pursuant to which he could have faced aggregate maximum sentences of 75 years to life (People v. Cornelio, 227 A.D.2d 248, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 982).
Defendant's CPL 440.10 motion was properly denied without a hearing (see, People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796). Defendant failed to provide sufficient factual allegations to support his claim that his arrest in the Dominican Republic involved egregious misconduct warranting dismissal (see, Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436; Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519; People v. Isaacson, 44 N.Y.2d 511). Defendant's ineffective assistance claim was likewise unsubstantiated. The record establishes that defendant received meaningful representation within the context of a guilty plea (see, People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397, 404), and that the issues that defendant faults his counsel for failing to raise would have been unavailing.
Defendant's waiver of his right to appeal forecloses review of his excessive sentence claim (People v. Hidalgo, 91 N.Y.2d 733).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.