Opinion
June 24, 1993
Appeal from the County Court of Sullivan County (Hanofee, J.).
Defendant contends on this appeal that his waiver of his right to appeal was invalid, that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel and that County Court erred in failing to suppress evidence found in a car driven by his brother, a codefendant. Defendant argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel due to the failure of his counsel to, inter alia, join in a suppression motion made by his codefendant. During the plea allocution, defendant acknowledged that as a part of the plea agreement he was waiving his right to appeal, including his right to appeal any matters related to the suppression hearing. We find that defendant's waiver of his right to appeal as a part of his guilty plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary, and he is therefore precluded from challenging the effectiveness of counsel as it relates to the suppression hearing on this direct appeal (see, People v. Condon, 184 A.D.2d 879; People v. Darling, 183 A.D.2d 950, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 902).
Further, to the extent that the effectiveness of counsel issue survives the waiver of the right to appeal (see, People v Ferguson, 192 A.D.2d 800), we cannot find that defendant was afforded ineffective assistance of counsel on this record. Given that the plea agreement resulted in a substantial reduction in defendant's sentencing exposure, we do not find that the mere fact that defense counsel failed to move to suppress evidence indicates ineffectiveness of counsel (see, People v. Nicholls, 157 A.D.2d 1004). Similarly, the fact that defense counsel did not join in defendant's pro se motion to withdraw his plea does not constitute ineffectiveness of counsel in this case (see, People v. Bourdonnay, 160 A.D.2d 1014; People v. Lynch, 156 A.D.2d 884, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 921; People v. Bell, 141 A.D.2d 749, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 1043).
Finally, we find no error in County Court's denial of defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Nothing in this record supports his conclusory assertions of coercion by defense counsel and the record of the plea proceeding indicates that defendant was fully apprised of his rights and stated that he was not coerced to enter the plea (see, People v. Lisbon, 187 A.D.2d 457; People v. Bell, 183 A.D.2d 837; People v. Machado, 181 A.D.2d 796, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1051; People v. Lynch, supra).
Weiss, P.J., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr. and Mercure, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.