PEOPLE v. BURWELL

The court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress identification testimony. The identifying witness led the police into a basement in search of an intruder, and the police arrested defendant in the witness's presence. Even assuming that the witness's viewing of defendant in custody moments later could be considered a showup, this prompt, on-the-scene procedure was entirely permissible ( see e.g. People v Gatling, 38 AD3d 239, lv denied 9 NY3d 865; People v Boutte, 304 AD2d 307, lv denied 100 NY2d 579).

After sufficient inquiry, the court properly denied defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea ( see People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520). The record establishes the voluntariness of the plea. Defendant's disappointment in his attorney's inability to negotiate a more favorable disposition was not a basis for withdrawing the plea; moreover, we note that defendant received the most lenient sentence available for one in his situation ( see Penal Law § 70.08 [c]).

Defendant's pro se ineffective assistance of counsel claims are unreviewable on direct appeal because they primarily involve matters outside the record ( see People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709; People v Love, 57 NY2d 998). On the existing record, to the extent it permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards ( see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714; People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404; see also Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668).