Crimes - Appeal - Court Properly Found Sua Sponte That Defendant's Motion to Vacate Judgment was Procedurally Barred under CPL 440.10 - Geographical Jurisdiction Defense Could Have Been Asserted before Plea or Sentencing Court or on Direct Appeal

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. Conviser, J.), entered on or about March 19, 2024, which denied defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate a judgment, same court (Rena K. Uviller, J.), rendered February 18, 2004, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 15 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The motion court properly found sua sponte that defendant's claims were procedurally barred pursuant to CPL 440.10 (2) (c). Where a "defendant's claim does not involve factual matters beyond the scope of the record or legal issues which could not have been asserted before the final judgment of conviction, it [is] not the proper subject of a CPL 440.10 motion" (People v Mower, 97 NY2d 239, 245-246 [2002]). Here, defendant could have asserted his geographical jurisdiction defense before the plea or sentencing court, or on a direct appeal. Moreover, that defense is based on information in the plea colloquy, which is contained in the record. Defendant also does not adequately explain why he waited nearly 20 years to assert this defense.

Notwithstanding the People's concession that the motion court quoted some inapplicable language from CPL 440.10 (2) (c), the court otherwise properly found that defendant's motion is procedurally barred under CPL 440.10 (2) (c). Concur—Webber, J.P., Kennedy, Mendez, Higgitt, O'Neill Levy, JJ.