People v. Ribeiro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ribeiro

2019 NY Slip Op 3083

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

DecidedApril 24, 2019

DocketInd. No. 15-00259

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2019 NY Slip Op 3083 (People v. Ribeiro) 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. Ribeiro, 2019 NY Slip Op 3083 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

People v Ribeiro (2019 NY Slip Op 03083)

People v Ribeiro

2019 NY Slip Op 03083

Decided on April 24, 2019

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on April 24, 2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
JEFFREY A. COHEN
ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.

2016-03091
(Ind. No. 15-00259)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Jose Ribeiro, appellant.

Paul N. Weber, Cornwall, NY, for appellant.

David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Middletown, NY (William C. Ghee of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Nicholas DeRosa, J.), rendered January 29, 2016, convicting him of resisting arrest and criminal contempt in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

To the extent that the defendant's contentions may be construed as challenging the voluntariness of his plea of guilty, they are unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw his plea on the asserted ground prior to the imposition of sentence (see People v McClenic, 155 AD3d 1064). In any event, the record demonstrates that the defendant's plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered (see People v Holmes, 255 AD2d 145).

The defendant's remaining contentions either were forfeited by his plea of guilty (see People v Hansen, 95 NY2d 227; People v Di Raffaele, 55 NY2d 234) or are precluded by his valid appeal waiver (see People v Debberman, 113 AD3d 929; People v White, 81 AD3d 1039).

RIVERA, J.P., CHAMBERS, COHEN and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court

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