Opinion
May 19, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Rena Uviller, J.).
Defendant's claim that he was not apprised of the fact that the bargained for term would run consecutively with the unfulfilled time on his prior conviction for attempted second degree murder is not preserved for review as a matter of law. Moreover, were we to reach the issue in the interest of justice, we would affirm. The requirement that defendant's sentence run consecutively was not imposed by the trial court as the product of the plea agreement, but resulted from the statutory mandate set forth in Penal Law § 70.25 as a consequence of defendant's status as a second violent felony offender. No promise was made that defendant's sentence would run concurrently with the balance of his unexpired term, which, as we have noted, would have been impermissible (cf., People v. Davis 161 A.D.2d 787, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 939, with People v. Fuller, 132 A.D.2d 617).
We also reject defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Assigned counsel successfully negotiated a plea which substantially reduced defendant's exposure to imprisonment, and the mere fact that counsel did not engage in some pretrial procedures available to defendant does not, of itself, indicate ineffective assistance of counsel (People v. Nicholls, 157 A.D.2d 1004, 1005).
We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and conclude that they are without merit.
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman and Smith, JJ.