defendant forfeited claim in New York

2014Moreover, by validly pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited his claim that he was denied his right to testify before the grand jury (see People v Benitez, 84 AD3d 826, 826-827 [2011]; People v Standley, 269 AD2d 614, 615 [2000]; People v Ferrara, 99 AD2d 257, 259 [1984]).

2014Moreover, by validly pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited his claim that he was denied his right to testify before the grand jury (see People v Benitez, 84 AD3d 826, 826-827 [2011]; People v Standley, 269 AD2d 614, 615 [2000]; People v Ferrara, 99 AD2d 257, 259 [1984]).

2014Moreover, by validly pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited his claim that he was denied his right to testify before the grand jury (see People v Benitez, 84 AD3d 826, 826-827 [2011]; People v Standley, 269 AD2d 614, 615 [2000]; People v Ferrara, 99 AD2d 257, 259 [1984]).

2014Moreover, by validly pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited his claim that he was denied his right to testify before the grand jury (see People v Benitez, 84 AD3d 826, 826-827 [2011]; People v Standley, 269 AD2d 614, 615 [2000]; People v Ferrara, 99 AD2d 257, 259 [1984]).

2013The defendant’s claims in his pro se supplemental brief that the felony complaint and the indictment were jurisdictionally insufficient survive his plea of guilty (see People v Hansen, 95 NY2d 227, 230 [2000]) and his waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Crummell, 84 AD3d 1393 [2011]; People v Libby, 246 AD2d 669 [1998]).

2011By pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited his challenge to the County Court’s exercise of its statutory authority (see CPL 210.45 [9] [d]) to extend the time allotted to the People for representing the charges to another grand jury following the dismissal of the original indictment (see People v Motley, 69 NY2d 870, 871-872 [1987]; People v Sobotker, 61 NY2d 44, 48 [1984]; see also People v Hansen, 95 NY2d 227 [2000]; People v Di Raffaele, 55 NY2d 234 [1982]).

2013Since the defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, does not directly involve the negotiation of his plea of guilty, the defendant forfeited that claim by pleading guilty (see People v Turner, 40 AD3d 1018, 1019 [2007]; People v Petgen, 55 NY2d 529 , 535 n 3 [1982]; People v Silent, 37 AD3d 625 [2007]; People v Cumba, 32 AD3d 444 [2006]).

2013Since the defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, does not directly involve the negotiation of his plea of guilty, the defendant forfeited that claim by pleading guilty (see People v Turner, 40 AD3d 1018, 1019 [2007]; People v Petgen, 55 NY2d 529 , 535 n 3 [1982]; People v Silent, 37 AD3d 625 [2007]; People v Cumba, 32 AD3d 444 [2006]).

2019By pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited his claim, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, of ineffective assistance of counsel, to the extent that it did not directly involve the plea negotiation process ( see People v Weston , 145 AD3d 746, 747 ; People v Solis , 111 AD3d 654, 655 ; People v Perazzo , 65 AD3d 1058, 1059 ).

2012By pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited his challenge to the indictment as containing multiplicitous counts (see People v Nichols, 32 AD3d 1316, 1317 [2006]; People v Nelson, 266 AD2d 730, 731 [1999]), as well as his claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve his challenge to the indictment as containing multiplicitous counts, since such a claim does not directly involve the plea bargaining process (see People v Rodriguez-Ovalles, 74 AD3d 1368, 1368-1369 [2010]; People v Perazzo, 65 AD3d 1058, 1059 [2009]).

2015To the extent that the defendant is claiming that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to file a motion to suppress evidence, the alleged ineffective assistance did not directly involve the plea bargaining process, and thus, the defendant forfeited that claim by pleading guilty (see *1001 People v McGuire, 122 AD3d 947, 948 [2014]; People v Griffin, 118 AD3d 721 [2014]; People v Bennett, 115 AD3d 973 [2014]).

2014Likewise, the defendant forfeited his claim that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel at the Sandoval hearing, inasmuch as that claim “does not directly involve the plea and sentence negotiation” (People v Bennett, 115 AD3d 973, 973 [2014]; see People v Ross, 113 AD3d 877, 878 [2014]).

2024To the extent that the defendant contends that his counsel's conduct affected the voluntariness of his plea, the defendant's claim is based, in part, on matter appearing on the record and, in part, on matter outside the record, and, thus, constitutes a "mixed claim of ineffective assistance" ( People v Maxwell , 89 AD3d 1108, 1109 ; see People v Evans , 16 NY3d 571 , 575 n 2).

2019To the extent that the defendant contends that his counsel's conduct affected the voluntariness of his plea, the defendant's claim is based, in part, on [*2]matter appearing on the record and, in part, on matter outside the record, and thus constitutes a "mixed claim" of ineffective assistance of counsel ( People v Maxwell , 89 AD3d 1108, 1109 ; see People v Evans , 16 NY3d 571 , 575 n 2).

2015Moreover, since his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel did not directly involve the plea bargaining process, the defendant forfeited the claim by pleading guilty (see People v McGuire, 122 AD3d 947, 948 [2014]).

2015To the extent that the defendant is claiming that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to file a motion to suppress evidence, the alleged ineffective assistance did not directly involve the plea bargaining process, and thus, the defendant forfeited that claim by pleading guilty (see *1001 People v McGuire, 122 AD3d 947, 948 [2014]; People v Griffin, 118 AD3d 721 [2014]; People v Bennett, 115 AD3d 973 [2014]).

2014Moreover, by validly pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited his claim that he was denied his right to testify before the grand jury (see People v Benitez, 84 AD3d 826, 826-827 [2011]; People v Standley, 269 AD2d 614, 615 [2000]; People v Ferrara, 99 AD2d 257, 259 [1984]).

2014Moreover, by validly pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited his claim that he was denied his right to testify before the grand jury (see People v Benitez, 84 AD3d 826, 826-827 [2011]; People v Standley, 269 AD2d 614, 615 [2000]; People v Ferrara, 99 AD2d 257, 259 [1984]).

2014Likewise, the defendant forfeited his claim that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel at the Sandoval hearing, inasmuch as that claim “does not directly involve the plea and sentence negotiation” (People v Bennett, 115 AD3d 973, 973 [2014]; see People v Ross, 113 AD3d 877, 878 [2014]).

2014Likewise, the defendant forfeited his claim that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel at the Sandoval hearing, inasmuch as that claim “does not directly involve the plea and sentence negotiation” (People v Bennett, 115 AD3d 973, 973 [2014]; see People v Ross, 113 AD3d 877, 878 [2014]).

2013The defendant’s contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that he was deprived of the constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel, as well as his other contentions raised therein, are based on matter outside the record and, thus, cannot be reviewed on direct appeal (see People v Rohlehr, 87 AD3d 603, 604 [2011]; People v Miller, 68 AD3d 1135, 1135 [2009]).

2013The defendant’s contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that he was deprived of the constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel, as well as his other contentions raised therein, are based on matter outside the record and, thus, cannot be reviewed on direct appeal (see People v Rohlehr, 87 AD3d 603, 604 [2011]; People v Miller, 68 AD3d 1135, 1135 [2009]).

2013The defendant’s contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that he was deprived of the constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel, as well as his other contentions raised therein, are based on matter outside the record and, thus, cannot be reviewed on direct appeal (see People v Rohlehr, 87 AD3d 603, 604 [2011]; People v Miller, 68 AD3d 1135, 1135 [2009]).

2013The defendant’s contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that he was deprived of the constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel, as well as his other contentions raised therein, are based on matter outside the record and, thus, cannot be reviewed on direct appeal (see People v Rohlehr, 87 AD3d 603, 604 [2011]; People v Miller, 68 AD3d 1135, 1135 [2009]).

2012The defendant’s challenge to his adjudication as a second violent felony offender is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Washington, 89 AD3d 1140, 1142 [2011]; People v Califano, 84 AD3d 1504, 1506 [2011]; People v Hargroves, 27 AD3d 765 [2006]).

2012The defendant’s challenge to his adjudication as a second violent felony offender is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Washington, 89 AD3d 1140, 1142 [2011]; People v Califano, 84 AD3d 1504, 1506 [2011]; People v Hargroves, 27 AD3d 765 [2006]).

2014Further, by pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited his claim that his statutory right to a speedy trial was violated (see People v O’Brien, 56 NY2d 1009, 1010 [1982]; People v Howe, 56 NY2d 622, 624 [1982]; People v Clary, 52 NY2d 1023 [1981]; People v Thill, 52 NY2d 1020, 1021 [1981]; People v Friscia, 51 NY2d 845, 847 [1980]).

2013Further, by pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited his claim that his statutory right to a speedy trial was violated (see People v O’Brien, 56 NY2d 1009 [1982]; People v Burke, 90 AD3d 1246 [2011]; People v Douglas, 46 AD3d 698 [2007]).