People v. Thigpen
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
People v Thigpen
2026 NY Slip Op 04661
July 24, 2026
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
v
WESLEY N. THIGPEN, ALSO KNOWN AS WESLEY THIGPEN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
Decided on July 24, 2026
485 KA 23-00075
Present: Bannister, J.P., Montour, Greenwood, Delconte, And Hannah, JJ.
THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (KERRY A. CONNER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
KEVIN T. FINNELL, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATAVIA (WILLIAM G. ZICKL OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Melissa Lightcap Cianfrini, J.), rendered November 9, 2022. The judgment convicted defendant upon his plea of guilty of predatory sexual assault against a child.
[*1]It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of predatory sexual assault against a child (Penal Law former § 130.96), defendant contends that his waiver of the right to appeal is invalid and that he was denied his statutory right to a speedy trial. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal is invalid, we conclude that defendant properly concedes that his speedy trial contention is unpreserved for our review (see People v Stoby, 232 AD3d 1298, 1298-1299 [4th Dept 2024], lv denied 43 NY3d 947 [2025]). Defendant also contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based upon defense counsel's alleged failure to pursue an allegedly meritorious speedy trial motion. That contention "survives his guilty plea only insofar as he demonstrates that the plea bargaining process was infected by [the] allegedly ineffective assistance or that [he] entered the plea because of [his] attorney['s] allegedly poor performance" (People v Boone, 242 AD3d 1518, 1519 [4th Dept 2025], lv denied 45 NY3d 944 [2026]; see also People v Brinson, 151 AD3d 1726, 1726 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1124 [2017]). To the extent that defendant's contention survives his plea, we conclude that it lacks merit. The record establishes that defendant received a favorable plea bargain, and that defendant received meaningful representation (see Boone, 242 AD3d at 1519; People v Reynolds, 239 AD3d 1363, 1364 [4th Dept 2025]). Contrary to defendant's assertion, we conclude "that there is nothing clear cut about [defendant's] CPL 30.30 claim" (Boone, 242 AD3d at 1519 [internal quotation marks omitted]). To the extent that defendant's contention is based on matters outside the record, we note that a CPL 440.10 proceeding is the appropriate forum for reviewing his claim (see Stoby, 232 AD3d at 1299).
Entered: July 24, 2026
Ann Dillon Flynn
Clerk of the Court
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
People v. Thigpen (People v. Thigpen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.