People v. Webster

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Webster

91 A.D.3d 1275, 937 N.Y.2d 494

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 2012

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 91 A.D.3d 1275 (People v. Webster) 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. Webster, 91 A.D.3d 1275, 937 N.Y.2d 494 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment of County Court convicting her upon her guilty plea of attempted forgery in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 170.10). In appeal No. 2, defendant appeals from a judgment of the same court revoking her sentence of probation for a misdemeanor charge to which she previously had pleaded guilty and resentencing her to one year in jail. Defendant’s plea in appeal No. 1 necessarily constituted an admission that she violated the terms and conditions of her probation in appeal No. 2.

Defendant’s primary contention in each appeal is that she did not receive the sentence promised by the court and thus that her pleas in both appeals were not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered. Although that contention survives defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal entered in connection with the plea in appeal No. 1 and thus in connection with the plea in appeal No. 2, defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review by moving to withdraw her pleas or to vacate the judgments of conviction (see People v Montanez, 89 AD3d 1409 [2011]). We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Defendant’s contention that she received ineffective assistance of counsel because her attorney failed to move to vacate the judgments is based on matters outside the record and therefore is not reviewable on direct appeal (see People v Rodriguez, 59 AD3d 173, 173-174 [2009], lv [1276]*1276denied 12 NY3d 858 [2009]). Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the sentence imposed with respect to both appeals is legal, and her challenge to the severity of the sentence in each appeal is foreclosed by her valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). Present — Scudder, RJ., Smith, Centra, Lindley and Gorski, JJ.

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

Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment of County Court convicting her upon her guilty plea of attempted forgery in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 170.10). In appeal No. 2, defendant appeals from a judgment of the same court revoking her sentence of probation for a misdemeanor charge to which she previously had pleaded guilty and resentencing her to one year in jail. Defendant’s plea in appeal No. 1 necessarily constituted an admission that she violated the terms and conditions of her probation in appeal No. 2.

Defendant’s primary contention in each appeal is that she did not receive the sentence promised by the court and thus that her pleas in both appeals were not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered. Although that contention survives defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal entered in connection with the plea in appeal No. 1 and thus in connection with the plea in appeal No. 2, defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review by moving to withdraw her pleas or to vacate the judgments of conviction (see People v Montanez, 89 AD3d 1409 [2011]). We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Defendant’s contention that she received ineffective assistance of counsel because her attorney failed to move to vacate the judgments is based on matters outside the record and therefore is not reviewable on direct appeal (see People v Rodriguez, 59 AD3d 173, 173-174 [2009], lv [1276]*1276denied 12 NY3d 858 [2009]). Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the sentence imposed with respect to both appeals is legal, and her challenge to the severity of the sentence in each appeal is foreclosed by her valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). Present — Scudder, RJ., Smith, Centra, Lindley and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.3d 1275, 937 N.Y.2d 494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-webster-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack