People v. Sandlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sandlin

282 A.D.2d 833, 722 N.Y.S.2d 921, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3679

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

DecidedApril 12, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 833 (People v. Sandlin) 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. Sandlin, 282 A.D.2d 833, 722 N.Y.S.2d 921, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3679 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Cardona, P. J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Essex County (Halloran, J.), rendered July 20, 1999, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree and attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

Based upon his possession of a metal shank, defendant was charged with promoting prison contraband in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. Defendant entered a counseled Alford plea to the reduced charges of attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree and attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. As part of the plea agreement, he waived his right to appeal and was sentenced as a second felony offender to concurrent terms of imprisonment of IV2 to 3 years to run consecutively with his current sentence. Defendant appeals and we affirm.

Defendant contends that County Court erred in accepting his Alford plea, a claim which survives his waiver of the right to appeal at least to the extent that it involves the voluntariness of the plea (see, People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10). Nevertheless, in light of defendant’s failure to move either to« withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, his challenge to the validity of his plea is not preserved for our review and no exception to the preservation doctrine is implicated in this case (see, People v Ramirez, 272 AD2d 779, lv denied 95 NY2d 907). In any event, were we to reach the merits, we would find defendant’s arguments to be unavailing. County Court satisfied its obligation to determine that [834]*834defendant’s plea represented a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action available to him (see, People v Ruger, 279 AD2d 795). Thus, we find no reason to disturb the plea in the interest of justice (see, id.).

Defendant’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found unpersuasive.

Mercure, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

—Cardona, P. J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Essex County (Halloran, J.), rendered July 20, 1999, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree and attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

Based upon his possession of a metal shank, defendant was charged with promoting prison contraband in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. Defendant entered a counseled Alford plea to the reduced charges of attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree and attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. As part of the plea agreement, he waived his right to appeal and was sentenced as a second felony offender to concurrent terms of imprisonment of IV2 to 3 years to run consecutively with his current sentence. Defendant appeals and we affirm.

Defendant contends that County Court erred in accepting his Alford plea, a claim which survives his waiver of the right to appeal at least to the extent that it involves the voluntariness of the plea (see, People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10). Nevertheless, in light of defendant’s failure to move either to« withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, his challenge to the validity of his plea is not preserved for our review and no exception to the preservation doctrine is implicated in this case (see, People v Ramirez, 272 AD2d 779, lv denied 95 NY2d 907). In any event, were we to reach the merits, we would find defendant’s arguments to be unavailing. County Court satisfied its obligation to determine that [834]*834defendant’s plea represented a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action available to him (see, People v Ruger, 279 AD2d 795). Thus, we find no reason to disturb the plea in the interest of justice (see, id.).

Defendant’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found unpersuasive.

Mercure, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 833, 722 N.Y.S.2d 921, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3679, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sandlin-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack