People v. Gordon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gordon

139 A.D.3d 1265, 30 N.Y.S.3d 585

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

DecidedMay 19, 2016

Docket107339

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 139 A.D.3d 1265 (People v. Gordon) 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. Gordon, 139 A.D.3d 1265, 30 N.Y.S.3d 585 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Devine, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Warren County (Hall Jr., J.), rendered November 7, 2014, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree.

Defendant, who was on parole, pleaded guilty to the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree in satisfaction of a 35-count indictment that charged him and his fiancée with numerous crimes in connection with their involvement in multiple drug transactions. Pursuant to the plea agreement, defendant executed a written waiver of appeal in open court. County Court thereafter sentenced defendant, as a second felony drug offender previously convicted of a violent felony, to an agreed-upon prison term of 17 years to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision. County Court also ordered defendant’s sentence to run consecutively to any remaining undischarged term of imprisonment that he was required to serve. Defendant now appeals.

We affirm. Contrary to defendant’s initial contention, his waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). Defendant, who had extensive prior knowledge of the criminal justice system, was advised during the plea colloquy “that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty,” and defendant acknowledged that he was expected to waive that right as a component of the plea agreement (People v Lopez, 6 NY3d at 256; see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337, 341-342 [2015]). Defendant then executed a detailed written waiver of the right to appeal and advised County Court that he had only done so after discussing the document with defense counsel. The written waiver and plea colloquy accordingly establish that defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal from *1266 his conviction and sentence (see People v Vellon, 128 AD3d 1274, 1274-1275 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1043 [2015]; People v Brown, 125 AD3d 1049, 1049 [2015]). Defendant’s valid waiver precludes his further argument that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive (see People v Toback, 125 AD3d 1060, 1061 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 993 [2015]; People v Hopper, 39 AD3d 1030, 1032 [2007]).

Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Clark and Mulvey, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Devine, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Warren County (Hall Jr., J.), rendered November 7, 2014, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree.

Defendant, who was on parole, pleaded guilty to the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree in satisfaction of a 35-count indictment that charged him and his fiancée with numerous crimes in connection with their involvement in multiple drug transactions. Pursuant to the plea agreement, defendant executed a written waiver of appeal in open court. County Court thereafter sentenced defendant, as a second felony drug offender previously convicted of a violent felony, to an agreed-upon prison term of 17 years to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision. County Court also ordered defendant’s sentence to run consecutively to any remaining undischarged term of imprisonment that he was required to serve. Defendant now appeals.

We affirm. Contrary to defendant’s initial contention, his waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). Defendant, who had extensive prior knowledge of the criminal justice system, was advised during the plea colloquy “that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty,” and defendant acknowledged that he was expected to waive that right as a component of the plea agreement (People v Lopez, 6 NY3d at 256; see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337, 341-342 [2015]). Defendant then executed a detailed written waiver of the right to appeal and advised County Court that he had only done so after discussing the document with defense counsel. The written waiver and plea colloquy accordingly establish that defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal from *1266 his conviction and sentence (see People v Vellon, 128 AD3d 1274, 1274-1275 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1043 [2015]; People v Brown, 125 AD3d 1049, 1049 [2015]). Defendant’s valid waiver precludes his further argument that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive (see People v Toback, 125 AD3d 1060, 1061 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 993 [2015]; People v Hopper, 39 AD3d 1030, 1032 [2007]).

Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Clark and Mulvey, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.3d 1265, 30 N.Y.S.3d 585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gordon-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack