People v. Duchatellier

138 A.D.3d 887, 28 N.Y.S.3d 332
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 13, 2016
Docket2014-11269
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 138 A.D.3d 887 (People v. Duchatellier) 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. Duchatellier, 138 A.D.3d 887, 28 N.Y.S.3d 332 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (De Rosa, J.), rendered November 19, 2014, convicting him of assault in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw his plea on this ground prior to the imposition of sentence (see CPL 220.60 [3]; People v Clarke, 93 NY2d 904, 906 [1999]; People v Andrea, 98 AD3d 627 [2012]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here because the defendant’s plea allocution did not cast significant doubt upon his guilt, negate an essential element of the crime, or call into question the voluntariness of the plea (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Gibson, 95 AD3d 1033 [2012]).

The defendant’s contentions regarding the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution and the excessiveness of his sentence are precluded by his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337, 340-341 [2015]; People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737 [2006]; People v Crews, 92 AD3d 795 [2012]; People v Hardee, 84 AD3d 835 [2011]). The defendant’s contention regarding the evidence presented before the grand jury is precluded both by his plea of guilty (see People v Konieczny, 2 NY3d 569, 572 [2004]; People v Hansen, 95 NY2d 227, 233 *888 [2000]; People v Woods, 115 AD3d 997 [2014]) and his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Guerrero, 126 AD3d 613, 614 [2015]; People v Howard, 119 AD3d 1090, 1091 [2014]).

Leventhal, J.P., Sgroi, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Rodriguez
2017 NY Slip Op 5854 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Flowers
2017 NY Slip Op 5842 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Simpson
2017 NY Slip Op 5625 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Christopher E. Marino
2017 NY Slip Op 5621 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Sanders
2017 NY Slip Op 5247 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Thompson
2016 NY Slip Op 7041 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
People v. Rifino
143 A.D.3d 741 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
People v. Palladino
140 A.D.3d 1194 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
138 A.D.3d 887, 28 N.Y.S.3d 332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-duchatellier-nyappdiv-2016.