People v. Welden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Welden

2017 NY Slip Op 9201, 156 A.D.3d 1241, 65 N.Y.S.3d 814

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

DecidedDecember 28, 2017

Docket107715

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 9201 (People v. Welden) 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. Welden, 2017 NY Slip Op 9201, 156 A.D.3d 1241, 65 N.Y.S.3d 814 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Rose, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Saratoga County (Scarano, J.), rendered September 4, 2014, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of aggravated driving while intoxicated with a child.

In satisfaction of an eight-count indictment and other pending charges, defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated driving while intoxicated with a child and waived his right to appeal. He was sentenced, in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, to a prison term of 1 to 3 years to be followed by a three-year conditional discharge that required him to install an interlock ignition device. Defendant appeals.

We affirm. Initially, we note that the waiver of the right to appeal was valid inasmuch as the record reflects that County Court distinguished the right to appeal as separate and distinct from the rights automatically forfeited by the guilty plea and defendant acknowledged that, after conferring with counsel, he understood and executed the written waiver of appeal. In view of the valid appeal waiver, defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the plea allocution is foreclosed (see People v Sullivan, 153 AD3d 1519, 1519 [2017]; People v Mahon, 148 AD3d 1303, 1304 [2017]). Defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of his plea, although not precluded by the appeal waiver, is unpre-served for our review inasmuch as the record does not reflect that defendant made an appropriate postallocution motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Nor did defendant make any statements during the plea colloquy to warrant the application of the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665-666 [1988]; People v Hopper, 153 AD3d 1045, 1046 [2017]; People v Williams, 150 AD3d 1549, 1550 [2017]). Were we to consider defendant’s contention, we would find that the record establishes that his plea was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered (see People v Conceicao, 26 NY3d 375, 383 [2015]).

Egan Jr., J.R, Devine, Mulvey and Rumsey, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Rose, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Saratoga County (Scarano, J.), rendered September 4, 2014, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of aggravated driving while intoxicated with a child.

In satisfaction of an eight-count indictment and other pending charges, defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated driving while intoxicated with a child and waived his right to appeal. He was sentenced, in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, to a prison term of 1 to 3 years to be followed by a three-year conditional discharge that required him to install an interlock ignition device. Defendant appeals.

We affirm. Initially, we note that the waiver of the right to appeal was valid inasmuch as the record reflects that County Court distinguished the right to appeal as separate and distinct from the rights automatically forfeited by the guilty plea and defendant acknowledged that, after conferring with counsel, he understood and executed the written waiver of appeal. In view of the valid appeal waiver, defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the plea allocution is foreclosed (see People v Sullivan, 153 AD3d 1519, 1519 [2017]; People v Mahon, 148 AD3d 1303, 1304 [2017]). Defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of his plea, although not precluded by the appeal waiver, is unpre-served for our review inasmuch as the record does not reflect that defendant made an appropriate postallocution motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Nor did defendant make any statements during the plea colloquy to warrant the application of the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665-666 [1988]; People v Hopper, 153 AD3d 1045, 1046 [2017]; People v Williams, 150 AD3d 1549, 1550 [2017]). Were we to consider defendant’s contention, we would find that the record establishes that his plea was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered (see People v Conceicao, 26 NY3d 375, 383 [2015]).

Egan Jr., J.R, Devine, Mulvey and Rumsey, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 9201, 156 A.D.3d 1241, 65 N.Y.S.3d 814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-welden-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack