People v. Mathayo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mathayo

2017 NY Slip Op 7635, 155 A.D.3d 1090, 62 N.Y.S.3d 825

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

DecidedNovember 2, 2017

Docket107029

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 7635 (People v. Mathayo) 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. Mathayo, 2017 NY Slip Op 7635, 155 A.D.3d 1090, 62 N.Y.S.3d 825 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Devine, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Breslin, J.), rendered September 17, 2013 in Albany County, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted robbery in the second degree.

Defendant and two codefendants were charged in an indictment with various crimes arising from the robbery of a convenience store. In satisfaction thereof, defendant pleaded guilty to attempted robbery in the second degree and waived his right to appeal. In accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, he was sentenced to 21l% years in prison and three years of postrelease supervision. He now appeals.

Defendant contends that his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary or intelligent and that he was induced into entering it by his counsel who provided ineffective assistance. Inasmuch as these claims implicate the voluntariness of defendant’s guilty plea, they are not precluded by his waiver of the right to appeal, but they have not been preserved for our review as the record does not disclose that defendant made an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Tetreault, 152 AD3d 1081, 1082 [2017]; People v Dubois, 150 AD3d 1562, 1563-1564 [2017]). Notably, the exception to the preservation rule is inapplicable as defendant did not make any statements during the plea colloquy that cast doubt upon his guilt or called into question the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Cooks, 150 AD3d 1323, 1324 [2017]). Notwithstanding his assertions to the contrary, he did not maintain his innocence when questioned by Supreme Court during the plea proceedings and was adequately advised of the deportation consequences of entering a guilty plea. Therefore, we find no reason to disturb the judgment of conviction.

Garry, J.P., Mulvey, Aarons and Rumsey, 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 Supreme Court (Breslin, J.), rendered September 17, 2013 in Albany County, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted robbery in the second degree.

Defendant and two codefendants were charged in an indictment with various crimes arising from the robbery of a convenience store. In satisfaction thereof, defendant pleaded guilty to attempted robbery in the second degree and waived his right to appeal. In accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, he was sentenced to 21l% years in prison and three years of postrelease supervision. He now appeals.

Defendant contends that his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary or intelligent and that he was induced into entering it by his counsel who provided ineffective assistance. Inasmuch as these claims implicate the voluntariness of defendant’s guilty plea, they are not precluded by his waiver of the right to appeal, but they have not been preserved for our review as the record does not disclose that defendant made an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Tetreault, 152 AD3d 1081, 1082 [2017]; People v Dubois, 150 AD3d 1562, 1563-1564 [2017]). Notably, the exception to the preservation rule is inapplicable as defendant did not make any statements during the plea colloquy that cast doubt upon his guilt or called into question the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Cooks, 150 AD3d 1323, 1324 [2017]). Notwithstanding his assertions to the contrary, he did not maintain his innocence when questioned by Supreme Court during the plea proceedings and was adequately advised of the deportation consequences of entering a guilty plea. Therefore, we find no reason to disturb the judgment of conviction.

Garry, J.P., Mulvey, Aarons and Rumsey, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 7635, 155 A.D.3d 1090, 62 N.Y.S.3d 825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mathayo-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack