People v. Mayo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mayo

130 A.D.3d 1099, 12 N.Y.S.3d 389

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

DecidedJuly 2, 2015

Docket106696

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 130 A.D.3d 1099 (People v. Mayo) 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. Mayo, 130 A.D.3d 1099, 12 N.Y.S.3d 389 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Devine, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Saratoga County (Scarano, J.), rendered January 10, 2014, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of criminal mischief in the third degree.

Defendant waived indictment, pleaded guilty to a superior court information charging her with criminal mischief in the third degree and waived her right to appeal. County Court thereafter sentenced her, as a second felony offender, to a prison term of IV2 to 3 years. Defendant now appeals.

We affirm. Contrary to defendant’s contention, her waiver of the right to appeal was valid. Both the plea colloquy and the *1100 written waiver informed her of the separate and distinct nature of her right to appeal, and County Court confirmed that defendant had discussed the waiver with counsel and understood its ramifications. Accordingly, we conclude that she knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived the right to appeal her conviction and sentence (see People v Lyman, 119 AD3d 968, 969 [2014]; People v Fligger, 117 AD3d 1343, 1344 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1061 [2014]). Defendant’s valid waiver precludes her contention that her sentence is harsh and excessive (see People v Velazquez, 125 AD3d 1063, 1063 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 993 [2015]; People v Merrill, 123 AD3d 1339, 1340 [2014]).

Defendant’s challenge to the factual sufficiency of her guilty plea and her claim that the plea should be vacated because County Court failed to inquire as to a potential intoxication defense are unpreserved for our review, inasmuch as the record does not indicate that she made an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Pearson, 110 AD3d 1116, 1116 [2013]; People v Campbell, 81 AD3d 1184, 1185 [2011]). Moreover, defendant did not make any statements during the plea colloquy that cast doubt upon her guilt or negated an essential element of the crime so as to trigger the narrow exception to the preservation rule or obligate County Court to undertake further inquiry concerning a potential intoxication defense (see People v Brown, 125 AD3d 1049, 1049-1050 [2015]; People v Pearson, 110 AD3d at 1116).

McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr. and Lynch, 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 Saratoga County (Scarano, J.), rendered January 10, 2014, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of criminal mischief in the third degree.

Defendant waived indictment, pleaded guilty to a superior court information charging her with criminal mischief in the third degree and waived her right to appeal. County Court thereafter sentenced her, as a second felony offender, to a prison term of IV2 to 3 years. Defendant now appeals.

We affirm. Contrary to defendant’s contention, her waiver of the right to appeal was valid. Both the plea colloquy and the *1100 written waiver informed her of the separate and distinct nature of her right to appeal, and County Court confirmed that defendant had discussed the waiver with counsel and understood its ramifications. Accordingly, we conclude that she knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived the right to appeal her conviction and sentence (see People v Lyman, 119 AD3d 968, 969 [2014]; People v Fligger, 117 AD3d 1343, 1344 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1061 [2014]). Defendant’s valid waiver precludes her contention that her sentence is harsh and excessive (see People v Velazquez, 125 AD3d 1063, 1063 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 993 [2015]; People v Merrill, 123 AD3d 1339, 1340 [2014]).

Defendant’s challenge to the factual sufficiency of her guilty plea and her claim that the plea should be vacated because County Court failed to inquire as to a potential intoxication defense are unpreserved for our review, inasmuch as the record does not indicate that she made an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Pearson, 110 AD3d 1116, 1116 [2013]; People v Campbell, 81 AD3d 1184, 1185 [2011]). Moreover, defendant did not make any statements during the plea colloquy that cast doubt upon her guilt or negated an essential element of the crime so as to trigger the narrow exception to the preservation rule or obligate County Court to undertake further inquiry concerning a potential intoxication defense (see People v Brown, 125 AD3d 1049, 1049-1050 [2015]; People v Pearson, 110 AD3d at 1116).

McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr. and Lynch, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 A.D.3d 1099, 12 N.Y.S.3d 389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mayo-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack