People v. Clark

52 A.D.3d 951, 860 N.Y.S.2d 659
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 12, 2008·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Cardona, P.J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Hamilton County (Feldstein, J), rendered May 9, 2006, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and waived his right to appeal. Thereafter, defendant was sentenced, as a second felony offender, to the agreed-upon term of 10 to 20 [952]*952years in prison, with that sentence to run concurrently with a one-year sentence previously imposed upon defendant’s prior probation violation. Contending that he was not afforded the effective assistance of counsel and that the negotiated sentence was harsh and excessive, defendant appeals.

Notably, defendant does not challenge the validity of the waiver of his right to appeal. While that waiver does not bar his assertion of ineffective assistance of counsel to the extent that it relates to the voluntariness of his plea, defendant’s “failure to move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction renders the claim unpreserved for our review” (People v Baldwin, 36 AD3d 1024, 1024 [2007]; see People v Garcia-Toro, 42 AD3d 750, 751 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 990 [2007]; People v Morgan, 39 AD3d 889, 890 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 848 [2007]). In any event, even if the issue were properly before us, we would find it to be lacking in merit. A review of the plea colloquy reflects that defendant fully understood the rights he was relinquishing, including the right to make suppression motions, and his potential exposure relative to sentencing. He also acknowledged that he had the opportunity to confer with counsel and expressed satisfaction with counsel’s representation.

Finally, with respect to defendant’s contention that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive, we note that his valid appeal waiver precludes him from raising this issue (see People v Nickell, 49 AD3d 1024, 1025 [2008]).

Spain, Carpinello, Malone Jr. and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

People v. Clark, 52 A.D.3d 951, 860 N.Y.S.2d 659 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

52 A.D.3d 951 (People v. Clark) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Gibbs
95 A.D.3d 1506 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
People v. Cassara
88 A.D.3d 1069 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. MacDonald
77 A.D.3d 989 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Lewis
73 A.D.3d 1340 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Culver
69 A.D.3d 976 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Patnode
60 A.D.3d 1109 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
People v. Dobrouch
59 A.D.3d 781 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
People v. Schmidt
57 A.D.3d 1104 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Sterling
57 A.D.3d 1110 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)