Opinion
February 1, 1993
Appeal from the County Court, Orange County (Pano Z. Patsalos, J.).
Ordered that the judgment and the order are affirmed.
The County Court properly rejected the defendant's contention that the search warrant obtained by the police was invalid on its face, since the warrant was issued upon a showing of probable cause to believe that an offense had been or was being committed, and that evidence of criminality was to be found in a certain place (see, People v Bigelow, 66 N.Y.2d 417; People v Schiavo, 162 A.D.2d 639; People v Londono, 148 A.D.2d 753). Moreover, although the court did grant the defendant a hearing in connection with the execution of the warrant, the defendant pleaded guilty before any decision was rendered in connection with the hearing and withdrew all outstanding motions, thereby forfeiting her right to appellate review of the claims to be considered at the hearing (see, e.g., People v Fernandez, 67 N.Y.2d 686, 688; People v Prescott, 66 N.Y.2d 216, 220, cert denied 475 U.S. 1150; CPL 710.70; see also, People v Carty, 173 A.D.2d 900, 901; People v Newman, 165 A.D.2d 745).
The defendant's assertion that the court should have held a Wade hearing is unpreserved for appellate review, inasmuch as no request for a Wade hearing was ever made (see, People v Leakes, 177 A.D.2d 714; People v White, 137 A.D.2d 859, 860). Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the record fails to support her assertions that she was coerced or misled by her attorney or "tricked" by the Trial Judge into pleading guilty (see, People v Thompson, 174 A.D.2d 702). Rather, the record indicates that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily made a complete plea allocution in the presence of competent counsel and after the court had fully apprised her of the consequences of her plea (see, People v Hagzan, 155 A.D.2d 616; People v Wood, 150 A.D.2d 411). Similarly, we conclude that the court properly denied the defendant's motion to set aside her conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10 on the grounds, inter alia, that her attorney coerced her (see, CPL 440.30 [a]).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in her supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05), or without merit (see, People v Thompson, supra, at 703; People v Day, 150 A.D.2d 595). Thompson, J.P., Balletta, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.