Charles J. Greenberg, Amherst, for Defendant–Appellant. Cindy F. Intschert, District Attorney, Watertown (Nicole L. Kyle of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05[6] ). We note at the outset that, as the People correctly concede, defendant did not waive his right to appeal.
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court erred in sentencing him without the benefit of an adequate presentence report ( see People v. Frazier, 91 A.D.3d 1319, 1319, 937 N.Y.S.2d 653, lv. denied18 N.Y.3d 994, 945 N.Y.S.2d 648, 968 N.E.2d 1004; People v. Goodbody, 249 A.D.2d 977, 977, 671 N.Y.S.2d 707), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( seeCPL 470.15[3][c] ). We reject defendant's further contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. “In the context of a guilty plea, a defendant has been afforded meaningful representation when he or she receives an advantageous plea and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of [defense] counsel ..., and that is the case here” (People v. Bonavito, 121 A.D.3d 1499, 1500, 992 N.Y.S.2d 830 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). To the extent that defendant contends that defense counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate or explore potential defenses, his contention is not properly before us because it involves matters outside the record on appeal and, thus, it must be raised by way of a motion pursuant to CPL article 440 ( see People v. Smith, 122 A.D.3d 1300, 1301, 995 N.Y.S.2d 881; People v. Sylvan, 107 A.D.3d 1044, 1045–1046, 968 N.Y.S.2d 628, lv. denied22 N.Y.3d 1141, 983 N.Y.S.2d 500, 6 N.E.3d 619). Contrary to defendant's further contention, we conclude that the court did not coerce him into pleading guilty by advising him of the potential terms of incarceration in the event he was convicted following a trial ( see People v. Hamilton, 45 A.D.3d 1396, 1396, 844 N.Y.S.2d 797, lv. denied10 N.Y.3d 765, 854 N.Y.S.2d 327, 883 N.E.2d 1262). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.