People v. Goodwin
Opinion
| People v Goodwin |
| 2022 NY Slip Op 02907 |
| Decided on April 29, 2022 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on April 29, 2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., LINDLEY, CURRAN, WINSLOW, AND BANNISTER, JJ.
205 KA 18-00876
v
DARRYL GOODWIN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
MARY WHITESIDE, NORTH HOLLYWOOD, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (DEREK HARNSBERGER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Vincent M. Dinolfo, J.), rendered September 22, 2016. The judgment convicted defendant upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]) and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree (§ 220.50 [2]). Initially, we agree with defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal is invalid and thus does not preclude our review of any of his contentions (see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545, 565-566 [2019], cert denied — US &mdash, 140 S Ct 2634 [2020]; People v Josue F., 191 AD3d 1483, 1484 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 957 [2021]).
Defendant contends that he was denied the right to counsel when, during his arraignment in Rochester City Court, that court relied on a statement made by the Public Defender that defendant was not eligible for assigned counsel. Because "the record does not make clear, irrefutably, that a right to counsel violation has occurred," defendant's contention must be raised by way of a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 (People v McLean, 15 NY3d 117, 121 [2010]; see People v Townsend, 202 AD3d 447, 448 [1st Dept 2022], lv denied — NY3d — [2022]; People v Bakerx, 114 AD3d 1244, 1247 [4th Dept 2014], lv denied 22 NY3d 1196 [2014]).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions concerning the grand jury presentation, and we conclude that they do not require
modification or reversal of the judgment.
Entered: April 29, 2022
Ann Dillon Flynn
Clerk of the Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
165 N.Y.S.3d 784 (People v. Goodwin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.