People v. Manuel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Manuel

79 A.D.3d 1817, 913 N.Y.S.2d 600

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 30, 2010·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Appeal from a judg[1818]*1818ment of the Wayne County Court (Stephen R. Sirkin, J.), rendered October 16, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third 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]). The contention of defendant that County Court failed to apprehend the extent of its discretion in sentencing him is not supported by the record (see People v Moon, 43 AD3d 1379 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1036 [2008]; People v Lee, 24 AD3d 1246 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 850 [2006]; cf. People v Schafer, 19 AD3d 1133 [2005]). To the extent that the further contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel survives his plea (see People v Barnes, 32 AD3d 1250 [2006]), it “involve[s] matters outside the record on appeal and thus [is] properly raised by way of a motion pursuant to CPL article 440” (People v Barnes, 56 AD3d 1171, 1171 [2008]; see People v Graham, 77 AD3d 1439 [2010]). Present — Martoche, J.P., Fahey, Carni, Lindley and Sconiers, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judg[1818]*1818ment of the Wayne County Court (Stephen R. Sirkin, J.), rendered October 16, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third 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]). The contention of defendant that County Court failed to apprehend the extent of its discretion in sentencing him is not supported by the record (see People v Moon, 43 AD3d 1379 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1036 [2008]; People v Lee, 24 AD3d 1246 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 850 [2006]; cf. People v Schafer, 19 AD3d 1133 [2005]). To the extent that the further contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel survives his plea (see People v Barnes, 32 AD3d 1250 [2006]), it “involve[s] matters outside the record on appeal and thus [is] properly raised by way of a motion pursuant to CPL article 440” (People v Barnes, 56 AD3d 1171, 1171 [2008]; see People v Graham, 77 AD3d 1439 [2010]). Present — Martoche, J.P., Fahey, Carni, Lindley and Sconiers, JJ.

People v. Manuel, 79 A.D.3d 1817, 913 N.Y.S.2d 600 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

79 A.D.3d 1817 (People v. Manuel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related