People v. Shavers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Shavers

11 A.D.3d 366, 784 N.Y.S.2d 487, 783 N.Y.S.2d 35, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12359

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 21, 2004·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berk-man, J.), rendered January 23, 2002, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of six years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of his plea is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the record establishes that defendant’s guilty plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]). The court’s remarks to a codefendant concerning the disposition of that codefendant’s case, which were not coercive in the first place, were irrelevant to defendant’s situation and they could not have undermined the voluntariness of defendant’s plea.

Defendant’s sentence, the minimum authorized by law, was not unconstitutional (see People v Thompson, 83 NY2d 477 [1994]). We note that defendant admitted to joint possession, along with his codefendants, of a large quantity of cocaine. Concur—Tom, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Lerner and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berk-man, J.), rendered January 23, 2002, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of six years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of his plea is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the record establishes that defendant’s guilty plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]). The court’s remarks to a codefendant concerning the disposition of that codefendant’s case, which were not coercive in the first place, were irrelevant to defendant’s situation and they could not have undermined the voluntariness of defendant’s plea.

Defendant’s sentence, the minimum authorized by law, was not unconstitutional (see People v Thompson, 83 NY2d 477 [1994]). We note that defendant admitted to joint possession, along with his codefendants, of a large quantity of cocaine. Concur—Tom, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Lerner and Sweeny, JJ.

People v. Shavers, 11 A.D.3d 366, 784 N.Y.S.2d 487, 783 N.Y.S.2d 35, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12359 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

11 A.D.3d 366 (People v. Shavers) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related