RUMSEY, JEFFREY, PEOPLE v

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 26, 2013
DocketKA 10-00815
StatusPublished

This text of RUMSEY, JEFFREY, PEOPLE v (RUMSEY, JEFFREY, PEOPLE v) 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
RUMSEY, JEFFREY, PEOPLE v, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

465 KA 10-00815 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JEFFREY RUMSEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

KATHLEEN P. REARDON, ROCHESTER, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

BROOKS T. BAKER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATH (AMANDA M. CHAFEE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Steuben County Court (Joseph W. Latham, J.), rendered March 3, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree and driving while intoxicated.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [3] [a] [iii]) and driving while intoxicated (§ 1192 [3]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, we conclude that his responses during the plea colloquy and his execution of a written waiver of the right to appeal establish that he intelligently, knowingly, and voluntarily waived his right to appeal (see People v Kulyeshie, 71 AD3d 1478, 1478-1479, lv denied 14 NY3d 889; People v Griner, 50 AD3d 1557, 1558, lv denied 11 NY3d 737; see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256). Defendant’s contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel does not survive his plea or his valid waiver of the right to appeal because he “failed to demonstrate that ‘the plea bargaining process was infected by [the] allegedly ineffective assistance or that defendant entered the plea because of his attorney[’s] allegedly poor performance’ ” (People v Wright, 66 AD3d 1334, 1334, lv denied 13 NY3d 912; see People v Rizek [appeal No. 1], 64 AD3d 1180, 1180, lv denied 13 NY3d 862).

Entered: April 26, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

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

Related

People v. Lopez
844 N.E.2d 1145 (New York Court of Appeals, 2006)
People v. Griner
50 A.D.3d 1557 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Rizek
64 A.D.3d 1180 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
People v. Wright
66 A.D.3d 1334 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
People v. Kulyeshie
71 A.D.3d 1478 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
RUMSEY, JEFFREY, PEOPLE v, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rumsey-jeffrey-people-v-nyappdiv-2013.