People v. Nimerofsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Nimerofsky

78 A.D.3d 735, 909 N.Y.S.2d 656

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 3, 2010·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Putnam County [736] (Rooney, J.), rendered March 31, 2010, convicting him of driving while intoxicated under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (3), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, his plea of guilty was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]; People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909, 910-911 [1990]; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 16-17 [1983]; People v Nixon, 21 NY2d 338, 353 [1967], cert denied sub nom. Robinson v New York, 393 US 1067 [1969]). To the extent that the defendant’s contentions regarding any alleged ineffective assistance of counsel rest on matter outside the record, they are not reviewable on direct appeal (see People v Ali, 55 AD3d 919 [2008]; People v Drago, 50 AD3d 920 [2008]). Insofar as the contentions are reviewable, the defendant received meaningful representation (see People v Drago, 50 AD3d 920 [2008]; People v Brooks, 36 AD3d 929, 930 [2007]; People v Grimes, 35 AD3d 882 [2006]).

Since the defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive the sentence which was thereafter actually imposed, he has no basis to now complain that his sentence, was excessive (see People v De Alvarez, 59 AD3d 732 [2009]; People v Fanelli, 8 AD3d 296 [2004]; People v Mejia, 6 AD3d 630 [2004]; People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816 [1984]). In any event, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Mastro, J.P., Florio, Dickerson, Belen and Lott, 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 County Court, Putnam County [736] (Rooney, J.), rendered March 31, 2010, convicting him of driving while intoxicated under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (3), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, his plea of guilty was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]; People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909, 910-911 [1990]; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 16-17 [1983]; People v Nixon, 21 NY2d 338, 353 [1967], cert denied sub nom. Robinson v New York, 393 US 1067 [1969]). To the extent that the defendant’s contentions regarding any alleged ineffective assistance of counsel rest on matter outside the record, they are not reviewable on direct appeal (see People v Ali, 55 AD3d 919 [2008]; People v Drago, 50 AD3d 920 [2008]). Insofar as the contentions are reviewable, the defendant received meaningful representation (see People v Drago, 50 AD3d 920 [2008]; People v Brooks, 36 AD3d 929, 930 [2007]; People v Grimes, 35 AD3d 882 [2006]).

Since the defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive the sentence which was thereafter actually imposed, he has no basis to now complain that his sentence, was excessive (see People v De Alvarez, 59 AD3d 732 [2009]; People v Fanelli, 8 AD3d 296 [2004]; People v Mejia, 6 AD3d 630 [2004]; People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816 [1984]). In any event, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Mastro, J.P., Florio, Dickerson, Belen and Lott, JJ., concur.

People v. Nimerofsky, 78 A.D.3d 735, 909 N.Y.S.2d 656 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

78 A.D.3d 735 (People v. Nimerofsky) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related