Opinion
2014-10-22
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Arthur FISHER, appellant.
Charles O. Lederman, White Plains, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se. Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Steven A. Bender and Richard Longworth Hecht of counsel), for respondent.
Charles O. Lederman, White Plains, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se. Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Steven A. Bender and Richard Longworth Hecht of counsel), for respondent.
, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Molea, J.), rendered January 18, 2012, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the first degree and waived his right to appeal the conviction and sentence. On appeal, the defendant does not challenge the voluntariness of the plea or the appeal waiver. However, the defendant challenges the constitutionality of Penal Law § 265.04(2) on Second Amendment (U.S. Const. 2d Amend.) grounds and contends that his conviction violates the ex post facto clause of the federal constitution (U.S. Const., art. I, § 10[1] ). These contentions are barred by the defendant's appeal waiver ( see People v. Keebler, 15 A.D.3d 724, 727, 789 N.Y.S.2d 547). Similarly, the defendant's nonjurisdictional challenge to the accusatory instrument was forfeited by his guilty plea and barred by his appeal waiver ( see People v. Skya, 43 A.D.3d 1190, 842 N.Y.S.2d 93).
The defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims are also precluded, except to the extent that the alleged ineffective assistance may have affected the voluntariness of his plea ( see People v. Montalvo, 105 A.D.3d 774, 775, 961 N.Y.S.2d 324; People v. Ramos, 77 A.D.3d 773, 774, 909 N.Y.S.2d 484). Insofar as the defendant contends that his counsel's conduct affected the voluntariness of the plea, the contention is based on matter dehors the record and, thus, cannot be reviewed on direct appeal ( see People v. Wornell, 112 A.D.3d 656, 976 N.Y.S.2d 175; People v. Folger, 110 A.D.3d 736, 971 N.Y.S.2d 890; People v. Rohlehr, 87 A.D.3d 603, 604, 927 N.Y.S.2d 919). The appropriate vehicle to allege ineffective assistance of counsel based on matter dehors the record is pursuant to CPL 440.10 ( see People v. Folger, 110 A.D.3d at 736, 971 N.Y.S.2d 890; People v. Rohlehr, 87 A.D.3d at 604, 927 N.Y.S.2d 919).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.