People v. Oswold

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Oswold

2017 NY Slip Op 4712, 151 A.D.3d 1756, 55 N.Y.S.3d 568

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

DecidedJune 9, 2017

Docket793 KA 15-00471

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 4712 (People v. Oswold) 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. Oswold, 2017 NY Slip Op 4712, 151 A.D.3d 1756, 55 N.Y.S.3d 568 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (William F. Kocher, J.), rendered February 11, 2015. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and peijury in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02 [1]) and perjury in the first degree (§ 210.15). Contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see generally People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337, 340-341 [2015]), and thus defendant’s challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution is encompassed by his waiver of the right to appeal (see People v McCrea, 140 AD3d 1655, 1655 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 933 [2016]). Moreover, defendant failed to preserve that challenge for our review inasmuch as he failed to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction on that ground (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]). In any event, “the plea allocution as a whole establishes that ‘defendant understood the charges and made an intelligent decision to enter a plea’ ” (People v Keitz, 99 AD3d 1254, 1255 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1012 [2013], denied reconsideration 21 NY3d 913 [2013], quoting People v Goldstein, 12 NY3d 295, 301 [2009]). Defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury with respect to the perjury count does not *1757 survive the guilty plea (see People v Gillett, 105 AD3d 1444, 1445 [2013]; People v Lawrence, 273 AD2d 805, 805 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 867 [2000]), nor does his challenge to the sufficiency of the factual allegations in the indictment with respect to that count (see People v Guerrero, 28 NY3d 110, 116 [2016]; Lawrence, 273 AD2d at 805; People v Holt, 173 AD2d 644, 645 [1991]).

Present — Whalen, P.J., Smith, Carni, Curran and Scudder, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (William F. Kocher, J.), rendered February 11, 2015. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and peijury in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02 [1]) and perjury in the first degree (§ 210.15). Contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see generally People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337, 340-341 [2015]), and thus defendant’s challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution is encompassed by his waiver of the right to appeal (see People v McCrea, 140 AD3d 1655, 1655 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 933 [2016]). Moreover, defendant failed to preserve that challenge for our review inasmuch as he failed to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction on that ground (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]). In any event, “the plea allocution as a whole establishes that ‘defendant understood the charges and made an intelligent decision to enter a plea’ ” (People v Keitz, 99 AD3d 1254, 1255 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1012 [2013], denied reconsideration 21 NY3d 913 [2013], quoting People v Goldstein, 12 NY3d 295, 301 [2009]). Defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury with respect to the perjury count does not *1757 survive the guilty plea (see People v Gillett, 105 AD3d 1444, 1445 [2013]; People v Lawrence, 273 AD2d 805, 805 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 867 [2000]), nor does his challenge to the sufficiency of the factual allegations in the indictment with respect to that count (see People v Guerrero, 28 NY3d 110, 116 [2016]; Lawrence, 273 AD2d at 805; People v Holt, 173 AD2d 644, 645 [1991]).

Present — Whalen, P.J., Smith, Carni, Curran and Scudder, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 4712, 151 A.D.3d 1756, 55 N.Y.S.3d 568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-oswold-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack