People v. Pandori

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pandori

133 A.D.3d 1044, 19 N.Y.S.3d 197, 2015 NY Slip Op 08470, 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8552

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

DecidedNovember 19, 2015

Docket106859

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 133 A.D.3d 1044 (People v. Pandori) 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. Pandori, 133 A.D.3d 1044, 19 N.Y.S.3d 197, 2015 NY Slip Op 08470, 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8552 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Rose, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Saratoga County (Scarano, J.), rendered May 13, 2014, convict *1045 ing defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of grand larceny in the third degree.

Defendant waived indictment, pleaded guilty to a superior court information charging him with grand larceny in the third degree and waived his right to appeal. County Court thereafter sentenced him to five years of probation. Defendant now appeals.

We affirm. Initially, we reject defendant’s contention that his waiver of the right to appeal was invalid. Both County Court and the written waiver informed him of the separate and distinct nature of the right to appeal, and County Court confirmed that defendant had discussed the waiver with counsel and understood its ramifications. Therefore, we conclude that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his conviction and sentence (see People v Fligger, 117 AD3d 1343, 1344 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1061 [2014]; People v Chavis, 117 AD3d 1193, 1193-1194 [2014]). Although defendant’s remaining claim — that his plea was not voluntarily entered due to the ineffective assistance of counsel — survives his appeal waiver, it is unpreserved for our review as the record does not reflect that he made an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Smith, 119 AD3d 1088, 1089 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1089 [2014]; People v Livziey, 117 AD3d 1341, 1342 [2014]). To the extent that his claim addresses matters outside the record, they are more properly the subject of a CPL article 440 motion (see People v Stroman, 107 AD3d 1023, 1025 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1046 [2013]; People v Planty, 85 AD3d 1317, 1318 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 820 [2011]).

McCarthy, J.P., Devine and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Rose, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Saratoga County (Scarano, J.), rendered May 13, 2014, convict *1045 ing defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of grand larceny in the third degree.

Defendant waived indictment, pleaded guilty to a superior court information charging him with grand larceny in the third degree and waived his right to appeal. County Court thereafter sentenced him to five years of probation. Defendant now appeals.

We affirm. Initially, we reject defendant’s contention that his waiver of the right to appeal was invalid. Both County Court and the written waiver informed him of the separate and distinct nature of the right to appeal, and County Court confirmed that defendant had discussed the waiver with counsel and understood its ramifications. Therefore, we conclude that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his conviction and sentence (see People v Fligger, 117 AD3d 1343, 1344 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1061 [2014]; People v Chavis, 117 AD3d 1193, 1193-1194 [2014]). Although defendant’s remaining claim — that his plea was not voluntarily entered due to the ineffective assistance of counsel — survives his appeal waiver, it is unpreserved for our review as the record does not reflect that he made an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Smith, 119 AD3d 1088, 1089 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1089 [2014]; People v Livziey, 117 AD3d 1341, 1342 [2014]). To the extent that his claim addresses matters outside the record, they are more properly the subject of a CPL article 440 motion (see People v Stroman, 107 AD3d 1023, 1025 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1046 [2013]; People v Planty, 85 AD3d 1317, 1318 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 820 [2011]).

McCarthy, J.P., Devine and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 A.D.3d 1044, 19 N.Y.S.3d 197, 2015 NY Slip Op 08470, 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pandori-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack