People v. McDowd

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McDowd

22 A.D.3d 688, 801 N.Y.S.2d 906

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

DecidedOctober 17, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.3d 688 (People v. McDowd) 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. McDowd, 22 A.D.3d 688, 801 N.Y.S.2d 906 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ort, J.), rendered October 24, 2003, convicting him of aggravated harassment in the second degree as a hate crime and aggravated harassment in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his First Amendment argument (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467, 473 [1980]), and we decline to review this issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

Further, the defendant waived his claim that his counsel was ineffective since he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered a plea of guilty and he does not contend that his counsel’s inadequacy tainted the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Thomas, 2 AD3d 982, 983 [2003]; People v Wood, 207 AD2d 1001 [1994]). We also decline to review this issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ort, J.), rendered October 24, 2003, convicting him of aggravated harassment in the second degree as a hate crime and aggravated harassment in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his First Amendment argument (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467, 473 [1980]), and we decline to review this issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

Further, the defendant waived his claim that his counsel was ineffective since he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered a plea of guilty and he does not contend that his counsel’s inadequacy tainted the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Thomas, 2 AD3d 982, 983 [2003]; People v Wood, 207 AD2d 1001 [1994]). We also decline to review this issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.3d 688, 801 N.Y.S.2d 906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcdowd-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack