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, etc., respondent, v. Richard N. QUINN, appellant.

Lisa H. Blitman, New York, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se.

David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Middletown, N.Y. (Elizabeth L. Schulz, Robert Middlemiss, Seth B. Altman, and Andrew R. Kass of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (De Rosa, J.), rendered May 9, 2012, convicting

him of burglary in the third degree, petit larceny, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that he was improperly sentenced as a second felony offender is without merit. The People sustained their burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant previously was convicted of a felony upon which his adjudication as a second felony offender was based (see CPL 400.21[7] ; People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 16, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170 ; People v. Glover, 69 A.D.3d 877, 878, 894 N.Y.S.2d 469 ; People v. Williams, 38 A.D.3d 576, 577, 833 N.Y.S.2d 516 ; People v. Myron, 28 A.D.3d 681, 684, 814 N.Y.S.2d 198 ). The defendant's conclusory allegations made at the sentencing proceeding, and his legal arguments made in support of his pro se motion asserting that his prior 2011 felony conviction was unconstitutionally obtained, were insufficient to

overcome the presumptions of the validity and regularity of the prior felony conviction (see People v. Myron, 28 A.D.3d at 684, 814 N.Y.S.2d 198 ; People v. Allen, 4 A.D.3d 479, 480, 771 N.Y.S.2d 685 ).

Furthermore, the defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel based upon counsel's failure to join in his pro se motion challenging the constitutionality of the prior felony conviction. Counsel cannot be held ineffective for failing to make a motion or argument that has little or no chance of success (see People v. Caban, 5 N.Y.3d 143, 152, 800 N.Y.S.2d 70, 833 N.E.2d 213 ; People v. Stultz, 2 N.Y.3d 277, 287, 778 N.Y.S.2d 431, 810 N.E.2d 883 ; People v. Watts, 91 A.D.3d 678, 679, 935 N.Y.S.2d 893 ; People v. Serrano, 81 A.D.3d 753, 754, 916 N.Y.S.2d 509 ; People v. Sanabria, 52 A.D.3d 743, 744–745, 861 N.Y.S.2d 359 ).

By pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited his right to appellate review of his contention that he should be released from custody because the People failed to comply with CPL 180.80 (see People v. Hansen, 95 N.Y.2d 227, 230, 715 N.Y.S.2d 369, 738 N.E.2d 773 ; People v. Taylor, 65 N.Y.2d 1, 5, 489 N.Y.S.2d 152, 478 N.E.2d 755 ; People v. Thomas, 53 N.Y.2d 338, 342–345, 441 N.Y.S.2d 650, 424 N.E.2d 537 ; People v. Fagan, 53 A.D.3d 983, 984, 862 N.Y.S.2d 629 ; People v. Henderson, 269 A.D.2d 404, 702 N.Y.S.2d 878 ).

DILLON, J.P., DICKERSON, ROMAN and SGROI, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

People v. Quinn
(Jan 28, 2015)