People v. Price

2022 NY Slip Op 01811

The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Keith Price, appellant.

No. 2019-00953, Ind. No. 1729/17

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

March 16, 2022

Kristina S. Heuser, Locust Valley, NY, for appellant.

Anne T. Donnelly, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Sarah S. Rabinowitz and Rebecca L. Abensur of counsel), for respondent.

VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P. ANGELA G. IANNACCI REINALDO E. RIVERA WILLIAM G. FORD, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Howard E. Sturim, J.), rendered September 6, 2018, convicting him of criminal contempt in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because assigned counsel failed to make certain pretrial motions. By pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited any claims of ineffective assistance of counsel that did not directly involve the plea negotiation process (see People v Petgen, 55 N.Y.2d 529, 534-535; People v Bailey, 200 A.D.3d 703, 703; People v Brown, 170 A.D.3d 878, 879; People v Buggsward, 138 A.D.3d 881, 882). To the extent that the defendant contends that ineffective assistance of counsel affected the voluntariness of his plea, nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel (see People v Petgen, 55 N.Y.2d at 534-535; People v Bailey, 200 A.D.3d at 704; People v Brown, 170 A.D.3d at 879).

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, since he did not move to withdraw his plea on this ground or otherwise raise this issue before the Supreme Court (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665; People v Smith, 193 A.D.3d 986, 986; People v Etienne, 193 A.D.3d 971, 973; People v Gomez, 137 A.D.3d 1161, 1162). In any event, the defendant's contention that his plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered, including his contention that the plea was the result of certain coercive conduct by the court, is without merit (see People v Dancy, 177 A.D.3d 995; People v Rivera, 33 A.D.3d 942).

BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., IANNACCI, RIVERA and FORD, JJ., concur.