People v. Barnes

186 N.Y.S.3d 875, 2023 NY Slip Op 02416
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 5, 2023
Docket156 KA 18-02332
StatusPublished

This text of 186 N.Y.S.3d 875 (People v. Barnes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Barnes, 186 N.Y.S.3d 875, 2023 NY Slip Op 02416 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

People v Barnes (2023 NY Slip Op 02416)
People v Barnes
2023 NY Slip Op 02416
Decided on May 5, 2023
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on May 5, 2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, BANNISTER, AND OGDEN, JJ.

156 KA 18-02332

[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

v

VERNELLE C. BARNES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.


MARK D. FUNK, CONFLICT DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (FABIENNE SANTACROCE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (SCOTT MYLES OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.



Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Charles A. Schiano, Jr., J.), rendered April 16, 2018. The judgment convicted defendant upon a plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (§ 265.02 [1]), defendant contends that his plea was not voluntary, intelligent and knowing because Supreme Court misinformed defendant that he retained the right to appeal the court's determination relating to the sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury. Defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review (see generally People v Williams, 27 NY3d 212, 224 [2016]; People v Barrett, 153 AD3d 1600, 1600-1601 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 1058 [2017]), and we decline to exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]).

Entered: May 5, 2023

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court



Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

The People v. Christian Williams
51 N.E.3d 528 (New York Court of Appeals, 2016)
People v. Barrett
2017 NY Slip Op 6764 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
186 N.Y.S.3d 875, 2023 NY Slip Op 02416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-barnes-nyappdiv-2023.