It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39). We reject the contention of defendant that County Court did not give due consideration to his pro se motion to withdraw his plea. The determination whether to entertain a pro se motion of a defendant who is represented by counsel is solely within the court's discretion ( see People v Rodriguez, 95 NY2d 497, 500; People v Minter, 295 AD2d 927, lv denied 98 NY2d 712), and we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in this case. We further reject defendant's contention that the bargained-for sentence is unduly harsh or severe. Finally, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the sentence imposed constituted cruel and unusual punish-ment ( see People v Reese, 31 AD3d 582, lv denied 7 NY3d 851) and, in any event, that contention lacks merit. "There are no exceptional circumstances warranting modification of the sentence, which was the statutory minimum and the result of a negotiated plea" ( id. at 583).