People v. Debberman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Debberman

113 A.D.3d 929, 978 N.Y.2d 448

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

DecidedJanuary 16, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 113 A.D.3d 929 (People v. Debberman) 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. Debberman, 113 A.D.3d 929, 978 N.Y.2d 448 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

McCarthy, J.

We affirm. For the reasons stated in People v Barton (113 AD3d 927 [2014] [decided herewith]), County Court properly denied defendant’s application to withdraw his guilty plea. Defendant additionally stated that he felt sleep-deprived during the plea colloquy, but County Court appropriately relied upon his responses during the colloquy and “its own extensive observations of and interaction with defendant” in determining that defendant’s purported fatigue did not call into question his ability to understand the proceedings (People v Mack, 90 AD3d 1317, 1318-1319 [2011]; see People v Alexander, 97 NY2d 482, 486 [2002]).

The bulk of defendant’s further contentions — including that the seized marihuana should have been suppressed, that he was deprived of his right to due process outside of the context of his guilty plea, that he was the victim of prosecutorial misconduct and judicial bias, and that marihuana’s purported role in his religious practices constituted a defense against the present prosecution — are precluded by his valid plea and appeal waiver. His jurisdictional argument, while properly before us, has been considered and found to lack merit.

[930]*930Peters, P.J., Rose and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

McCarthy, J.

We affirm. For the reasons stated in People v Barton (113 AD3d 927 [2014] [decided herewith]), County Court properly denied defendant’s application to withdraw his guilty plea. Defendant additionally stated that he felt sleep-deprived during the plea colloquy, but County Court appropriately relied upon his responses during the colloquy and “its own extensive observations of and interaction with defendant” in determining that defendant’s purported fatigue did not call into question his ability to understand the proceedings (People v Mack, 90 AD3d 1317, 1318-1319 [2011]; see People v Alexander, 97 NY2d 482, 486 [2002]).

The bulk of defendant’s further contentions — including that the seized marihuana should have been suppressed, that he was deprived of his right to due process outside of the context of his guilty plea, that he was the victim of prosecutorial misconduct and judicial bias, and that marihuana’s purported role in his religious practices constituted a defense against the present prosecution — are precluded by his valid plea and appeal waiver. His jurisdictional argument, while properly before us, has been considered and found to lack merit.

[930]*930Peters, P.J., Rose and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 A.D.3d 929, 978 N.Y.2d 448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-debberman-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack