People v. Grimes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Grimes

183 N.Y.S.3d 859, 2023 NY Slip Op 01527

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

DecidedMarch 22, 2023

DocketInd. No. 2497/12

StatusPublished

This text of 183 N.Y.S.3d 859 (People v. Grimes) 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. Grimes, 183 N.Y.S.3d 859, 2023 NY Slip Op 01527 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

People v Grimes (2023 NY Slip Op 01527)

People v Grimes

2023 NY Slip Op 01527

Decided on March 22, 2023

Appellate Division, Second 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 March 22, 2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
BETSY BARROS, J.P.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
JOSEPH A. ZAYAS
HELEN VOUTSINAS, JJ.

2016-02832
(Ind. No. 2497/12)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Rashaud Grimes, appellant.

Jonathan Rosenberg, PLLC, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant.

Raymond A. Tierney, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Meaghan Powers, Marion Tang, and Glenn Green of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Richard Ambro, J.), rendered February 9, 2016, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel due to his attorney's alleged failure to properly advise him with respect to his waiver of the right to appeal, a waiver that has not been invoked against him on appeal, is without merit (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147).

Contrary to the defendant's further contention, the County Court was not required to advise him at the time he pleaded guilty of the ramifications of violating the terms of postrelease supervision, and the absence of such an advisement did not impair the knowing, voluntary, and intelligent nature of his plea (see People v Monk, 21 NY3d 27).

BARROS, J.P., CHAMBERS, ZAYAS and VOUTSINAS, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Maria T. Fasulo

Clerk of the Court

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