Opinion
2017–03071 Ind.No. 16–00127
10-07-2020
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. James A. HINTON, Jr., appellant.
Joseph J. Artrip, Cornwall, NY, for appellant. David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Robert H. Middlemiss of counsel), for respondent.
Joseph J. Artrip, Cornwall, NY, for appellant.
David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Robert H. Middlemiss of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Robert H. Freehill, J.), rendered February 28, 2017, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
By pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited appellate review of any claims of ineffective assistance of counsel that do not directly involve the plea bargaining process and sentence (see People v. Petgen, 55 N.Y.2d 529, 535 n. 3, 450 N.Y.S.2d 299, 435 N.E.2d 669 ; People v. Tallegrand, 177 A.D.3d 783, 784, 110 N.Y.S.3d 334 ; People v. Parker, 176 A.D.3d 1106, 1107, 112 N.Y.S.3d 777 ; People v. Brown, 170 A.D.3d 878, 879, 96 N.Y.S.3d 110 ). To the extent that the defendant's contention relates to alleged ineffective assistance that directly involves the plea negotiation process and sentence, it is based, in part, on matter appearing on the record and, in part, on matter outside the record and, thus, constitutes a "mixed claim" of ineffective assistance of counsel ( People v. Maxwell, 89 A.D.3d 1108, 1109, 933 N.Y.S.2d 386 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Evans, 16 N.Y.3d 571, 575 n. 2, 925 N.Y.S.2d 366, 949 N.E.2d 457 ). Since the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be resolved without reference to matter outside the record, a CPL 440.10 proceeding is the appropriate forum for reviewing the claim in its entirety, and we decline to review the claim on this direct appeal (see People v. Freeman, 93 A.D.3d 805, 806, 940 N.Y.S.2d 314 ; People v. Maxwell, 89 A.D.3d at 1109, 933 N.Y.S.2d 386 ).
The County Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant youthful offender treatment. The record supports the court's determination that the defendant, a youth convicted of an armed felony offense (see CPL 1.20[41] ), did not establish the requisite mitigating circumstances bearing directly upon the manner in which the crime was committed so as to render him eligible for youthful offender treatment (see CPL 720.10[2][a] ; [3]; People v. Sanford, 173 A.D.3d 906, 906–907, 99 N.Y.S.3d 885 ; People v. D.M., 168 A.D.3d 879, 880, 89 N.Y.S.3d 906 ). Moreover, contrary to the defendant's contention, the court placed its determination to deny youthful offender treatment on the record (see CPL 720.10[3] ; People v. Minemier, 29 N.Y.3d 414, 421, 80 N.E.3d 389 ; People v. Middlebrooks, 25 N.Y.3d 516, 527–528, 14 N.Y.S.3d 296, 35 N.E.3d 464 ). The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
RIVERA, J.P., CHAMBERS, IANNACCI and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.