People v. Blanding

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Blanding

139 A.D.3d 641, 30 N.Y.S.3d 864

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 31, 2016

Docket4598/12 1332 1331

StatusPublished

This text of 139 A.D.3d 641 (People v. Blanding) 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. Blanding, 139 A.D.3d 641, 30 N.Y.S.3d 864 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. FitzGerald, J.), rendered June 21, 2013, convicting defendant, upon his guilty plea, of attempted assault in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 7V2 years, and order (same court and Justice), entered on or about June 13, 2014, denying defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion to vacate his conviction, unanimously affirmed.

Because defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea was premised on completely different grounds from those he asserts on appeal, his present claim that his plea was coerced by the court’s statements during the plea proceeding is unpreserved (see People v Tabares, 52 AD3d 437 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 835 [2008]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find the plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered, and that the court’s accurate description of the potential consequences of a conviction after trial was not coercive (see id.).

Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims regarding defendant’s desire to testify before the grand jury are without merit (see People v Hogan, 26 NY3d 779 [2016]; People v Simmons, 10 NY3d 946, 949 [2008]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

We have considered and rejected defendant’s pro se claims.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz, Richter and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. FitzGerald, J.), rendered June 21, 2013, convicting defendant, upon his guilty plea, of attempted assault in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 7V2 years, and order (same court and Justice), entered on or about June 13, 2014, denying defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion to vacate his conviction, unanimously affirmed.

Because defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea was premised on completely different grounds from those he asserts on appeal, his present claim that his plea was coerced by the court’s statements during the plea proceeding is unpreserved (see People v Tabares, 52 AD3d 437 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 835 [2008]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find the plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered, and that the court’s accurate description of the potential consequences of a conviction after trial was not coercive (see id.).

Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims regarding defendant’s desire to testify before the grand jury are without merit (see People v Hogan, 26 NY3d 779 [2016]; People v Simmons, 10 NY3d 946, 949 [2008]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

We have considered and rejected defendant’s pro se claims.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz, Richter and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.3d 641, 30 N.Y.S.3d 864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-blanding-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack