People v. Gonzalez-Saez

16 A.D.3d 1171, 792 N.Y.S.2d 745, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2834
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 18, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 16 A.D.3d 1171 (People v. Gonzalez-Saez) 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. Gonzalez-Saez, 16 A.D.3d 1171, 792 N.Y.S.2d 745, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2834 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Michael F. Pietruszka, J.), rendered January 9, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the second degree and attempted robbery in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a plea of guilty of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [2] [b]) and attempted robbery in the second degree (§§ 110.00, 160.10 [2] [a]). We agree with defendant that the record of the plea colloquy fails to establish that his waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, voluntary and intelligent. County Court’s “single reference to defendant’s right to appeal is insufficient to establish that the court ‘engage[d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice’ ” (People v Brown, 296 AD2d 860, 860 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 767 [2002], quoting People v Kemp, 255 AD2d 397, 397 [1998]). Con[1172]*1172trary to defendant’s contention, however, we conclude that the incarceration portion of the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the restitution portion of his sentence (see People v McCorkle, 298 AD2d 848, 848-849 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 561 [2002]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that challenge as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Gorski, Martoche and Smith, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Thousand
41 A.D.3d 1272 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
People v. Breen
30 A.D.3d 1044 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
People v. Roundtree
28 A.D.3d 1184 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
People v. King
20 A.D.3d 907 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
People v. McQuiller
19 A.D.3d 1043 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 A.D.3d 1171, 792 N.Y.S.2d 745, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2834, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gonzalez-saez-nyappdiv-2005.