People v. Ropiza

100 A.D.3d 935, 954 N.Y.S.2d 188
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 21, 2012
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 100 A.D.3d 935 (People v. Ropiza) 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. Ropiza, 100 A.D.3d 935, 954 N.Y.S.2d 188 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Hinrichs, J.), rendered September 15, 2009, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

[936]*936The defendant’s contention that the County Court should have conducted a further inquiry before imposing sentence, based upon certain post-plea assertions made by him, is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v James, 78 AD3d 965 [2010]; People v Modesto, 39 AD3d 567 [2007]; People v Cooper, 34 AD3d 827 [2006]; People v Tinsley, 32 AD3d 447 [2006]). Moreover, the rare exception to the preservation requirement is not applicable (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Modesto, 39 AD3d at 567; People v Cooper, 34 AD3d at 827). In any event, the defendant’s assertions do not warrant vacating his plea (see People v Modesto, 39 AD3d at 567; People v Cooper, 34 AD3d at 827; People v Tinsley, 32 AD3d 447 [2006]).

The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, except to the extent that the alleged ineffective assistance affected the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Watt, 82 AD3d 912 [2011]; People v Aguayo, 73 AD3d 938, 939 [2010]). To the extent the defendant claims that the alleged ineffective assistance affected the voluntariness of his plea, the record reveals that he received an advantageous plea, and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Watt, 82 AD3d at 912-913).

The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal also precludes appellate review of his claim that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v Benitez, 84 AD3d 826, 827 [2011]). Mastro, J.E, Skelos, Chambers and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Steele
2021 NY Slip Op 04622 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
People v. Sanders
2017 NY Slip Op 1719 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Kwabena
2016 NY Slip Op 8883 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
People v. Palladino
140 A.D.3d 1194 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
People v. Jemmott
132 A.D.3d 697 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
People v. Hatcher
130 A.D.3d 648 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
People v. Granger
122 A.D.3d 940 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
People v. Izurieta
116 A.D.3d 881 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
People v. Bennett
115 A.D.3d 973 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
People v. Mejia
112 A.D.3d 855 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
People v. McBride
103 A.D.3d 920 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
100 A.D.3d 935, 954 N.Y.S.2d 188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ropiza-nyappdiv-2012.