People v. Peterson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Peterson

35 A.D.3d 1195, 825 N.Y.S.2d 622

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

DecidedDecember 22, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 35 A.D.3d 1195 (People v. Peterson) 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. Peterson, 35 A.D.3d 1195, 825 N.Y.S.2d 622 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (William D. Walsh, J.), rendered February 24, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree.

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

[1196]*1196Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree (Penal Law § 220.18 [1]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, the record establishes that his waiver of the right to appeal was made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). County Court thoroughly reviewed the consequences of the waiver with defendant, defendant expressed his understanding of those consequences and waived the right to appeal both orally and in writing. Furthermore, the plea bargain was reasonable. We reject defendant’s contention that the waiver of the right to appeal is against public policy (see generally People v Muniz, 91 NY2d 570, 573-574 [1998]).

Although the contention of defendant that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily or intelligently entered survives the waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Holifield, 34 AD3d 1316 [2006]; People v DeJesus, 248 AD2d 1023 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 878 [1998]), by failing to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment, defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review (see DeJesus, 248 AD2d at 1023). In any event, we conclude that defendant’s contention is without merit (see generally People v Seeber, 4 NY3d 780, 780-781 [2005]). The contention of defendant that his factual colloquy was insufficient, thereby rendering his plea involuntary, is not supported by the record, which establishes that defendant admitted the underlying factual allegations of the crime and responded to questions regarding details of the crime. Present—Scudder, EJ., Martoche, Centra and Green, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (William D. Walsh, J.), rendered February 24, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree.

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

[1196]*1196Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree (Penal Law § 220.18 [1]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, the record establishes that his waiver of the right to appeal was made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). County Court thoroughly reviewed the consequences of the waiver with defendant, defendant expressed his understanding of those consequences and waived the right to appeal both orally and in writing. Furthermore, the plea bargain was reasonable. We reject defendant’s contention that the waiver of the right to appeal is against public policy (see generally People v Muniz, 91 NY2d 570, 573-574 [1998]).

Although the contention of defendant that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily or intelligently entered survives the waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Holifield, 34 AD3d 1316 [2006]; People v DeJesus, 248 AD2d 1023 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 878 [1998]), by failing to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment, defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review (see DeJesus, 248 AD2d at 1023). In any event, we conclude that defendant’s contention is without merit (see generally People v Seeber, 4 NY3d 780, 780-781 [2005]). The contention of defendant that his factual colloquy was insufficient, thereby rendering his plea involuntary, is not supported by the record, which establishes that defendant admitted the underlying factual allegations of the crime and responded to questions regarding details of the crime. Present—Scudder, EJ., Martoche, Centra and Green, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A.D.3d 1195, 825 N.Y.S.2d 622, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-peterson-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack