People v. Folger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Folger

110 A.D.3d 736, 971 N.Y.S.2d 890

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

DecidedOctober 2, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 110 A.D.3d 736 (People v. Folger) 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. Folger, 110 A.D.3d 736, 971 N.Y.S.2d 890 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), rendered October 11, 2011, convicting him of attempted assault in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that his plea was not voluntary is unpreserved for appellate review, because he did not move to vacate his plea or otherwise raise this issue before the County Court (see People v Perez, 51 AD3d 1043 [2008]). In any event, the defendant’s plea of guilty was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 17 [1983]).

The defendant’s pro se contention that he was deprived of the constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel is based on matters outside the record, and thus it cannot be reviewed on direct appeal (see People v Rohlehr, 87 AD3d 603, 604 [2011]; People v Miller, 68 AD3d 1135, 1135 [2009]). “ ‘The appropriate vehicle ... to allege ineffective assistance of counsel grounded in allegations referring to facts outside of the . . . record is pursuant to CPL 440.10, where matters dehors the record may be considered’ ” (People v Rohlehr, 87 AD3d at 604, quoting People v Miller, 68 AD3d at 1135). Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), rendered October 11, 2011, convicting him of attempted assault in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that his plea was not voluntary is unpreserved for appellate review, because he did not move to vacate his plea or otherwise raise this issue before the County Court (see People v Perez, 51 AD3d 1043 [2008]). In any event, the defendant’s plea of guilty was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 17 [1983]).

The defendant’s pro se contention that he was deprived of the constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel is based on matters outside the record, and thus it cannot be reviewed on direct appeal (see People v Rohlehr, 87 AD3d 603, 604 [2011]; People v Miller, 68 AD3d 1135, 1135 [2009]). “ ‘The appropriate vehicle ... to allege ineffective assistance of counsel grounded in allegations referring to facts outside of the . . . record is pursuant to CPL 440.10, where matters dehors the record may be considered’ ” (People v Rohlehr, 87 AD3d at 604, quoting People v Miller, 68 AD3d at 1135). Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A.D.3d 736, 971 N.Y.S.2d 890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-folger-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack