AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Cal

McCARTHY, J.

Timothy S. Brennan, Schenectady for appellant.

Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Peter H. Willis of counsel), for respondent.

Before: PETERS, P.J., McCARTHY, EGAN JR., LYNCH and DEVINE, JJ.

Opinion

McCARTHY, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Drago, J.), rendered January 8, 2014, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree in full satisfaction of a four-count indictment pursuant to a plea agreement that included a waiver of the right to appeal. Consistent with the agreement, County Court thereafter sentenced defendant, as a second felony offender, to six years in prison to be followed by 2 ½ years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.

We affirm. Initially, we reject defendant's challenge to the validity of his appeal waiver, as the plea colloquy and the written waiver executed in open court demonstrate that he knowingly,

intelligently and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his conviction and sentence ( see People v. Crispell, 136 A.D.3d 1121, 1122, 24 N.Y.S.3d 454 [2016] ; People v. Donah, 127 A.D.3d 1413, 1413, 5 N.Y.S.3d 736 [2015] ). Defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal precludes his claim that his sentence is harsh and excessive ( see People v. Clark, 135 A.D.3d 1239, 1240, 23 N.Y.S.3d 481 [2016], lv. denied 27 N.Y.3d 995, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, –––N.E.3d –––– [2016] ; People v. Clapper, 133 A.D.3d 1037, 1038, 20 N.Y.S.3d 452 [2015], lv. denied 27 N.Y.3d 995, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, –––N.E.3d –––– [2016] ).

Defendant's claims that his guilty plea was not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel are unpreserved for our review, as the record does not indicate that he made an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v. Almeida, 127 A.D.3d 1499, 1500, 7 N.Y.S.3d 696 [2015], lv. denied 26 N.Y.3d 1006, 20 N.Y.S.3d 547, 42 N.E.3d 217 [2015] ; People

v. Vandemark, 117 A.D.3d 1339, 1340, 986 N.Y.S.2d 684 [2014], lv. denied 24 N.Y.3d 965, 996 N.Y.S.2d 224, 20 N.E.3d 1004 [2014] ). Regarding the plea, the narrow exception to the preservation rule is inapplicable, inasmuch as defendant did not make any statements during the plea allocution that negated a material element of the crime or otherwise cast doubt upon his guilt ( see People v. Atkinson, 124 A.D.3d 1149, 1150, 2 N.Y.S.3d 687 [2015], lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 949, 7 N.Y.S.3d 278, 30 N.E.3d 169 [2015] ; People v. Lewis, 118 A.D.3d 1125, 1125–1126, 987 N.Y.S.2d 250 [2014], lv. denied 24 N.Y.3d 1003, 997 N.Y.S.2d 121, 21 N.E.3d 573 [2014] ).

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

PETERS, P.J., EGAN JR., LYNCH and DEVINE, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

People v. Constantopoules
(Jul 21, 2016)