Opinion
06-26-2024
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Daniel J. STATINI, appellant.
Thomas T. Keating, Dobbs Ferry, NY, for appellant. Anthony P. Parisi, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Anna K. Diehn of counsel), for respondent.
Thomas T. Keating, Dobbs Ferry, NY, for appellant.
Anthony P. Parisi, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Anna K. Diehn of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., COLLEEN D. DUFFY, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, CARL J. LANDICINO, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Peter M. Forman, J.), rendered September 17, 2020, convicting him of assault in the second degree and aggravated family offense, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
By entering a plea of guilty, the defendant forfeited his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel to the extent that it did not directly involve the plea negotiation process (see People v. Edwards, 223 A.D.3d 840, 842, 203 N.Y.S.3d 710; People v. Monroe, 174 A.D.3d 649, 650, 104 N.Y.S.3d 696). To the extent that the defendant contends that his counsel’s conduct affected the voluntariness of his plea, the defendant’s claim 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" (People v. Maxwell, 89 A.D.3d 1108, 1109, 933 N.Y.S.2d 386; 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. Olmos, 199 A.D.3d 711, 711–712, 153 N.Y.S.3d 898; People v. Maxwell, 89 A.D.3d at 1109, 933 N.Y.S.2d 386).
Moreover, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for leave to renew his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. The record of the defendant’s plea proceeding belies his assertion that counsel failed to apprise him of a potential intoxication defense; in particular, the defendant confirmed that he had discussed potential defenses with counsel and was satisfied with counsel’s services (see People v. Fellows, 208 A.D.3d 682, 683, 171 N.Y.S.3d 909; People v. Rodriguez, 206 A.D.3d 1383, 1385, 170 N.Y.S.3d 359; People v. Turner, 195 A.D.3d 953, 954, 146 N.Y.S.3d 510). Furthermore, the evidence, namely video surveillance footage of the incident at issue, does not support the defendant’s claim that such a defense was viable in this case (see People v. Fellows, 208 A.D.3d at 683, 171 N.Y.S.3d 909).
Further, "[b]y pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited his contention regarding the sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury" (People v. Kelly, 151 A.D.3d 7B1, 752, 55 N.Y.S.3d 445; see People v. Devodier, 102 A.D.3d 884, 885, 958 N.Y.S.2d 220).
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).
The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit.
DILLON, J.P., DUFFY, CHRISTOPHER and LANDICINO, JJ., concur.