Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Mount Pleasant, Westchester County (Anthony J. Servino, J.), rendered March 25, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of promoting prison contraband in the second degree.

Judgment of conviction affirmed.

Initially charged with a misdemeanor, which was superseded by a felony complaint, defendant, already serving a sentence upon his conviction of an unrelated felony, entered a guilty plea to a superseding misdemeanor complaint, in exchange for a sentence to run concurrently with the prior sentence, and waived his right to appeal.
By pleading guilty, defendant forfeited his claim that the "requisite CPL 180.50 reduction inquiry, i.e., whether the facts and evidence provide a basis for charging a nonfelony offense,' was not conducted" (People v Hunter, 5 NY3d 750, 751 [2005] [citation omitted]; e.g. People v Johnson, 10 Misc 3d 136[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 52136[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]). Moreover, defendant waived his right to be prosecuted by information by virtue of paragraph 5 of the waiver of rights form, executed in open court as a part of the plea proceedings (People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 359 [2000]; cf. People v Connor, 63 NY2d 11, 13-14 [1984]). In any event, the particular defect alleged, that the instrument was not supported by nonhearsay proof of the nature of the contraband "promoted," was forfeited by his plea (People v Keizer, 100 NY2d 114, 121 [2003]; see also People v Casey, 95 NY2d at 367).

Defendant also waived his statutory right to a speedy trial by failing to move, in writing and on reasonable notice to the People, to dismiss the accusatory instrument on that ground [*2]before he entered his plea (People v Hansen, 95 NY2d 227, 231 n 3 [2000]; People v Lawrence, 64 NY2d 200, 203-204 [1984]) and appellate review of the claim is, in any event, foreclosed by a guilty plea (e.g. People v O'Brien, 56 NY2d 1009, 1010 [1982]; People v Lane, 1 AD3d 801, 803 [2003]). As defendant contends, even where defendant has waived the right to appeal, an Appellate Court may reverse or vacate a judgment of conviction and dismiss an accusatory instrument, in the interest of justice, upon a finding that a trial counsel's failure to make a meritorious statutory speedy trial motion deprived defendant of meaningful representation (e.g. People v Johnson, 288 AD2d 501, 502 [3d Dept 2001]; People v Courtney, 249 AD2d 485 [1998]); cf. People v Irons, 3 AD3d 740, 741 [3d Dept 2004]; People v Lane, 1 AD3d 801, 803 [3d Dept 2003]). However, such authority does not obviate the necessity of a post-judgment motion to develop facts relevant to the nature of trial counsel's representation (People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; see e.g. People v Love, 57 NY2d 998, 1000 [1982]; People v Brown, 45 NY2d 852, 853-854 [1978]; People v Polanco, 13 AD3d 100, 101 [2004]), where, as here, defendant alleged off-the-record matters that are material to his claim that counsel's dereliction so "impeded the voluntariness of his plea" that he should be relieved of the judgment of conviction (People v Irons, 3 AD3d at 741). Although defendant made such motions, the facts developed below are not before us as he failed to seek leave to appeal from the motions' denials (CPL 450.15 [1]; People v Myles, 251 AD2d 515 [1998]; People v Phillmore, 9 Misc 3d 126[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51425[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]; People v Parisi, 5 Misc 3d 131[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51349[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]). Insofar as the claim is before us upon the appeal from the judgment of conviction, it is the appellant's burden "to
provide a sufficient record with respect to [a] claim that [he or she] was deprived of . . . a speedy trial" (People v Lopez, 271 AD2d 699 [2000]; see People v Olivo, 52 NY2d
309, 320 [1981]; People v Harden, 6 AD3d 181, 182 [2004]; People v Gonzalez,
295 AD2d 264 [2002]) and that the propriety of his plea and waiver is fatally
compromised by counsel's ineffective representation. The fragmented record of the trial proceedings submitted to this court is inadequate to permit meaningful review of the claim's merits (People v Oliver, 24 AD3d 1305 [4th Dept 2005]).

Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Lippman, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 13, 2006