Opinion
656, 656A
April 1, 2003.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lawrence Tonetti, J.), rendered December 22, 1999, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of manslaughter in the first degree, attempted murder in the second degree, criminal use of a firearm in the first degree and conspiracy in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 8 to 25 years, 8 to 25 years, 12½ to 25 years and 1 to 4 years, respectively, and order, same court and Justice, entered August 27, 2001, denying his motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPL 440.10, unanimously affirmed.
Peter A. Sell, for respondent.
Allen Fallek Pro Se, for defendant-appellant.
Before: Nardelli, J.P., Sullivan, Friedman, Marlow, Gonzalez, JJ.
Defendant's post-plea claims of innocence did not undermine a plea which, the record demonstrates, was not the result of ineffective assistance of counsel or coercion by the court, as defendant asserts, and was otherwise knowing and voluntary (see People v. Graham, 191 A.D.2d 353;see People v. Lopez, 262 A.D.2d 109, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 1003, habeas corpus denied 2003 U.S. Dist LEXIS 65, 2003 WL 41699). We note that, at sentencing, defendant did not assert innocence as such, but rather that if he were guilty, so too were the People's informants, and that it was a "travesty of justice" that the informants were not being prosecuted. Defendant's claim that his simultaneous convictions of criminal use of a firearm and of either manslaughter and attempted murder violate the prohibition against double jeopardy is unpreserved (see People v. Gonzalez, 99 N.Y.2d 76, 82-83; People v. Johnson, 299 A.D.2d 287), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find no violation of the prohibition against double jeopardy (see Aparicio v. Artuz, 269 F.3d 78; Gonzalez, 99 N.Y.2d at 82). By his guilty plea, defendant waived his right to appellate review of his claim that he was selectively prosecuted for criminal use of a firearm (People v. Wright, 260 A.D.2d 192).
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.