State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: July 23, 2015 106589 

________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

NEW YORK,

Respondent,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DARYL E. VONNEIDA,

Appellant.

________________________________

Calendar Date: June 3, 2015

Before: Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Egan Jr. and Rose, JJ.

__________

John R. Trice, Elmira, for appellant.

Joseph G. Fazzary, District Attorney, Watkins Glen (John C.

Tunney of counsel), for respondent.

__________

McCarthy, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schuyler

County (Morris, J.), rendered December 19, 2013, convicting

defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of course of

sexual conduct against a child in the second degree (three

counts).

Defendant was charged in a four-count indictment with

repeated sex crimes against three children under the age of 13. 

In satisfaction thereof, he pleaded guilty to three counts of

course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree. 

While there was no specific sentence commitment, defendant was

promised that the sentences would run concurrently to the

sentence to be imposed upon his convictions in federal court for

production of child pornography and other crimes. He was
-2- 106589 

thereafter sentenced to life imprisonment on the federal charges

(United States v Vonneida, 601 Fed Appx 38 [2d Cir 2015]). 

County Court imposed a sentence of seven years on each count, to

be served consecutively to one another but concurrently to the

federal sentence. Defendant appeals.

Defendant contends that he did not receive the effective

assistance of counsel in that counsel failed to pursue pretrial

discovery and motions. "It is well settled that 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 counsel" (People v Wares, 124 AD3d 1079, 1080 [2015], lv

denied 25 NY3d 993 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citations

omitted]). Failure to request a suppression hearing or to make a

pretrial motion does not, by itself, constitute ineffective

assistance, particularly in the absence of any basis upon which

to conclude that a defendant had a colorable claim or that

counsel's actions were not premised upon a legitimate strategy

(see People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1998]; People v Cooper,

126 AD3d 1046, 1047-1048 [2015]; cf. People v Carnevale, 101 AD3d

1375, 1378-1379 [2012]). Defendant affirmed during the plea that

he was "very satisfied" with counsel, who procured a favorable

disposition with prison time concurrent to his federal sentence,

and nothing in the record indicates a lack of meaningful

representation (see People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]). 

We are not persuaded by defendant's remaining argument that

the sentences were harsh and excessive, given defendant's extreme

abuse of these young children. Consecutive sentences were

authorized for each of these convictions, which involved separate

and distinct acts of repeated abuse perpetrated against three

different children (see Penal Law § 70.25 [2]; People Salcedo, 92

NY2d 1019, 1021 [1998]).

Peters, P.J., Egan Jr. and Rose, JJ., concur.
-3- 106589 

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court