Opinion
No. KA 06-01224.
November 9, 2007.
Appeal from a judgment of the Steuben County Court (Joseph W. Latham, J), rendered February 8, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.
ALAN P. REED, CANANDAIGUA, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
JOHN C. TUNNEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATH (BROOKS T. BAKER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
Present: Hurlbutt, J.P., Centra, Lunn, Fahey and Pine, JJ.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.06). The contention of defendant that the prosecutor coerced his guilty plea is not preserved for our review ( see CPL 470.05) and, in any event, that contention is belied by defendant's statements during the plea colloquy ( see People v Cato, 306 AD2d 914, lv dismissed 1 NY3d 569). Finally, to the extent that the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel survives his plea of guilty ( see People v Burke, 256 AD2d 1244, lv denied 93 NY2d 851), we conclude that it lacks merit ( see generally People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404; People v Gradia, 28 AD3d 1206, 1207, lv denied 7 NY3d 756).