People v. Rafter

234 A.D.2d 711, 651 N.Y.S.2d 639, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12455
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 12, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 234 A.D.2d 711 (People v. Rafter) 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. Rafter, 234 A.D.2d 711, 651 N.Y.S.2d 639, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12455 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

—Carpinello, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Nicandri, J.), rendered August 9, 1994, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of rape in the second degree and sodomy in the second degree (two counts).

Initially, defendant challenges the sufficiency of his plea allocution. However, because defendant failed to make a motion to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction, this issue is not preserved for review (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662; People v Lewis, 211 AD2d 923, lv denied 86 NY2d 737). In any event, a review of the record reveals nothing which would cast significant doubt upon defendant’s guilt or otherwise call into question the voluntariness of the plea so as to have triggered County Court’s duty to inquire further to ensure that the plea was knowing and voluntary (see, People v Lopez, supra, at 665).

With respect to defendant’s assertion that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel, there is nothing in the record to demonstrate that defendant received less than meaningful representation (see, People v Chevalier, 226 AD2d 925, lv denied 88 NY2d 934). A favorable plea bargain was negotiated by trial counsel and we also note that defendant specifically stated that he was satisfied with the representation he received at the time of his plea.

Finally, defendant claims that the concurrent prison terms of 3 to 6 years imposed upon him as a second felony offender were harsh and excessive. Given the nature of the crimes and the age and vulnerability of the victims involved, we find no reason to disturb the sentence imposed by County Court (see, People v Blair, 228 AD2d 720).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, White and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

People v. Schell
300 A.D.2d 1120 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
People v. Gregory
290 A.D.2d 810 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
People v. Brooks
273 A.D.2d 513 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
People v. Alicea
264 A.D.2d 900 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
People v. Crone
251 A.D.2d 889 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
People v. Fuller
245 A.D.2d 987 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
People v. Stockwell
243 A.D.2d 992 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
People v. Murphy
243 A.D.2d 954 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
People v. Raquel
238 A.D.2d 766 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
People v. McElhiney
237 A.D.2d 827 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
People v. Khamsybounhevang
237 A.D.2d 828 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
234 A.D.2d 711, 651 N.Y.S.2d 639, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12455, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rafter-nyappdiv-1996.