People v. McGhan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McGhan

236 A.D.2d 883, 653 N.Y.S.2d 893, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1891

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 7, 1997·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that her confession should have been suppressed because it was obtained in violation of her rights. "[B]y pleading guilty before the hearing on [her] suppression motion, defendant precluded the making of a record and, in consequence, foreclosed the pos[884] sibility of appellate review of [her] challenge to the admissibility of the People’s evidence” (People v Fernandez, 67 NY2d 686, 688; see, People v Porter, 213 AD2d 1070, 1071, lv denied 85 NY2d 978). By pleading guilty, defendant also waived her right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence before the Grand Jury (see, People v Dunbar, 53 NY2d 868, 871).

Upon our review of the record, we conclude that defendant received effective assistance of counsel. Defendant’s attorney provided meaningful representation, thus satisfying the constitutional requirement (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147).

Finally, defendant’s sentence, which was agreed upon as part of the plea bargain, is not unduly harsh or severe (see, People v Cotton, 219 AD2d 836, 837, lv denied 87 NY2d 900; People v Tejeda, 217 AD2d 932, 934, lv denied 87 NY2d 908). (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Henry, Jr., J.—Burglary, 2nd Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Doerr, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that her confession should have been suppressed because it was obtained in violation of her rights. "[B]y pleading guilty before the hearing on [her] suppression motion, defendant precluded the making of a record and, in consequence, foreclosed the pos[884] sibility of appellate review of [her] challenge to the admissibility of the People’s evidence” (People v Fernandez, 67 NY2d 686, 688; see, People v Porter, 213 AD2d 1070, 1071, lv denied 85 NY2d 978). By pleading guilty, defendant also waived her right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence before the Grand Jury (see, People v Dunbar, 53 NY2d 868, 871).

Upon our review of the record, we conclude that defendant received effective assistance of counsel. Defendant’s attorney provided meaningful representation, thus satisfying the constitutional requirement (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147).

Finally, defendant’s sentence, which was agreed upon as part of the plea bargain, is not unduly harsh or severe (see, People v Cotton, 219 AD2d 836, 837, lv denied 87 NY2d 900; People v Tejeda, 217 AD2d 932, 934, lv denied 87 NY2d 908). (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Henry, Jr., J.—Burglary, 2nd Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Doerr, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

People v. McGhan, 236 A.D.2d 883, 653 N.Y.S.2d 893, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1891 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

236 A.D.2d 883 (People v. McGhan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related