People v. McCloe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McCloe

301 A.D.2d 744, 752 N.Y.S.2d 913, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 95

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

DecidedJanuary 9, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 301 A.D.2d 744 (People v. McCloe) 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. McCloe, 301 A.D.2d 744, 752 N.Y.S.2d 913, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 95 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Crew III, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Mathews, J.), rendered March 31, 2000, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of assault in the second degree.

In satisfaction of a multicount superior court information, defendant pleaded guilty to assault in the second degree and thereafter was sentenced, in accordance with a plea agreement, to a determinate term of imprisonment of three years, together with five years of postrelease supervision. In conjunction therewith, defendant also pleaded guilty to certain charges in Binghamton City Court and received a nine-month sentence to run concurrently with the sentence imposed for the assault charge. Defendant now appeals contending, inter alia, that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel.

Inasmuch as defendant neither moved to withdraw his plea nor to vacate his judgment of conviction, he failed to preserve his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for our review (see e.g. People v Wright, 295 AD2d 806, 806-807). Were we to reach this issue, we nonetheless would find defendant’s argument to be lacking in merit. Defendant received a favorable plea bargain — one which permitted him to avoid prosecution for the most serious count of the information and to serve the sentences imposed concurrently — and the record as a whole belies defendant’s claim that he was denied effective representation. Defendant’s remaining contentions, including his assertion that the negotiated sentence imposed was harsh or excessive, have been examined and found to be equally lacking in merit.

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Crew III, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Mathews, J.), rendered March 31, 2000, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of assault in the second degree.

In satisfaction of a multicount superior court information, defendant pleaded guilty to assault in the second degree and thereafter was sentenced, in accordance with a plea agreement, to a determinate term of imprisonment of three years, together with five years of postrelease supervision. In conjunction therewith, defendant also pleaded guilty to certain charges in Binghamton City Court and received a nine-month sentence to run concurrently with the sentence imposed for the assault charge. Defendant now appeals contending, inter alia, that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel.

Inasmuch as defendant neither moved to withdraw his plea nor to vacate his judgment of conviction, he failed to preserve his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for our review (see e.g. People v Wright, 295 AD2d 806, 806-807). Were we to reach this issue, we nonetheless would find defendant’s argument to be lacking in merit. Defendant received a favorable plea bargain — one which permitted him to avoid prosecution for the most serious count of the information and to serve the sentences imposed concurrently — and the record as a whole belies defendant’s claim that he was denied effective representation. Defendant’s remaining contentions, including his assertion that the negotiated sentence imposed was harsh or excessive, have been examined and found to be equally lacking in merit.

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 A.D.2d 744, 752 N.Y.S.2d 913, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 95, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mccloe-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack