People v. Sumahit

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sumahit

72 A.D.3d 991, 898 N.Y.S.2d 510

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

DecidedApril 20, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 72 A.D.3d 991 (People v. Sumahit) 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. Sumahit, 72 A.D.3d 991, 898 N.Y.S.2d 510 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J), rendered November 6, 2008, convicting him of gang assault in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Since the defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea, his contention that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Antoine, 59 AD3d 560 [2009]; People v Castillo-Cordero, 54 AD3d 1054 [2008]; People v Bevins, 27 AD3d 572 [2006]; People v Martin, 7 AD3d 640 [2004]). In any event, his plea of guilty was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]; People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 283 [1992]; People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909, 910-911 [1990]; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 16 [1983]; People v Nixon, 21 NY2d 338 [1967], cert denied 393 US 1067 [1969]).

To the extent that the defendant’s contentions regarding any alleged ineffective assistance of counsel rest on matter outside the record, they are not reviewable on direct appeal (see People v Ali, 55 AD3d 919 [2008]; People v Drago, 50 AD3d 920 [2008]). Insofar as the contentions are reviewable, we find that the defendant received meaningful representation (see People v Drago, 50 AD3d 920 [2008]; People v Brooks, 36 AD3d 929, 930 [2007]; People v Grimes, 35 AD3d 882, 883 [2006]).

Since the defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive the sentence which was thereafter actually imposed, he has no basis to now complain that his sentence was excessive (see People v De Alvarez, 59 AD3d 732 [2009]; People v Fanelli, 8 AD3d 296 [2004]; People v Mejia, 6 AD3d 630, 631 [2004]; People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816 [1984]. In any event, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Mastro, J.P., Santucci, Dickerson, Belen and Austin, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J), rendered November 6, 2008, convicting him of gang assault in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Since the defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea, his contention that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Antoine, 59 AD3d 560 [2009]; People v Castillo-Cordero, 54 AD3d 1054 [2008]; People v Bevins, 27 AD3d 572 [2006]; People v Martin, 7 AD3d 640 [2004]). In any event, his plea of guilty was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]; People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 283 [1992]; People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909, 910-911 [1990]; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 16 [1983]; People v Nixon, 21 NY2d 338 [1967], cert denied 393 US 1067 [1969]).

To the extent that the defendant’s contentions regarding any alleged ineffective assistance of counsel rest on matter outside the record, they are not reviewable on direct appeal (see People v Ali, 55 AD3d 919 [2008]; People v Drago, 50 AD3d 920 [2008]). Insofar as the contentions are reviewable, we find that the defendant received meaningful representation (see People v Drago, 50 AD3d 920 [2008]; People v Brooks, 36 AD3d 929, 930 [2007]; People v Grimes, 35 AD3d 882, 883 [2006]).

Since the defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive the sentence which was thereafter actually imposed, he has no basis to now complain that his sentence was excessive (see People v De Alvarez, 59 AD3d 732 [2009]; People v Fanelli, 8 AD3d 296 [2004]; People v Mejia, 6 AD3d 630, 631 [2004]; People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816 [1984]. In any event, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Mastro, J.P., Santucci, Dickerson, Belen and Austin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.3d 991, 898 N.Y.S.2d 510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sumahit-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack