Opinion
February 24, 1994
Appeal from the County Court of Clinton County (McGill, J.).
Initially, we note that defendant waived his right to appeal the conviction as part of his guilty plea (see, People v Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1; People v. Ross, 182 A.D.2d 1022, lv dismissed 80 N.Y.2d 934; People v. Haynes, 180 A.D.2d 911) in exchange for an agreed-upon sentence which was not to exceed 6 to 18 years in prison. After County Court imposed the bargained-for sentence, defendant took this appeal.
Our review of the plea minutes satisfies us that County Court fully apprised defendant of the constitutional rights he was waiving by his guilty plea (see, People v. Rogers, 163 A.D.2d 337, 338, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 943) and that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered a counseled Alford plea (see, North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25; People v. Serrano, 15 N.Y.2d 304; People v. Ross, supra; People v. Haynes, supra). Furthermore, by failing to move to withdraw his plea before sentencing under CPL 220.60 (3) or to vacate the judgment of conviction under CPL 440.10, defendant failed to preserve for judicial review his challenge to the plea allocution (see, People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665; People v. Haynes, supra) that County Court failed to advise him that he was waiving a possible defense of insanity. In any event, there is no proof in this record indicating that he was legally insane at the time of the crime. Therefore, County Court was under no obligation to inquire whether defendant was aware of the possible defense of mental disease or defect (see, People v. Selnik, 194 A.D.2d 472; People v. Kubik, 186 A.D.2d 271, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 1027).
In reference to his sentence, although defendant labels his appellate claims as a challenge to its legality, he is really challenging the accuracy of some of the information contained in the presentence report and County Court's alleged overreliance on deterrence. These claims are really challenges to the procedures "utilized in determining and imposing sentence" (People v Callahan, 80 N.Y.2d 273, 281). They do not implicate the power of the court (see, supra). Consequently, they were effectively waived by defendant's bargained-for waiver of appeal (see, supra; People v. Rosado, 199 A.D.2d 833).
Finally, "viewing the evidence, the law and the circumstances of this case together" (People v. Ferguson, 192 A.D.2d 800, 801, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 717), we find no merit to defendant's claim of ineffective representation.
Mercure, Crew III, White and Weiss, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.