WILLIAMS, ANTWON M., PEOPLE v

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

WILLIAMS, ANTWON M., PEOPLE v

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

DecidedMarch 16, 2012

DocketKA 09-01485

StatusPublished

This text of WILLIAMS, ANTWON M., PEOPLE v (WILLIAMS, ANTWON M., 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

WILLIAMS, ANTWON M., PEOPLE v, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

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

251 KA 09-01485 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, LINDLEY, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ANTWON M. WILLIAMS, ALSO KNOWN AS ANTWON Q. WILLIAMS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

KRISTIN F. SPLAIN, CONFLICT DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (KIMBERLY CZAPRANSKI OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL C. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (LESLIE E. SWIFT OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Frank P. Geraci, Jr., J.), rendered May 27, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the first degree.

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

Memorandum: Upon appeal from a judgment convicting him following his plea of guilty of burglary in the first degree (Penal Law § 140.30 [2]), defendant contends that his written waiver of his right to appeal, which he executed as part of the plea agreement, is not valid. We reject that contention (see People v Caraballo, 59 AD3d 971, lv denied 12 NY3d 852; People v Duncan, 267 AD2d 995, lv denied 94 NY2d 918). Defendant’s further contention that County Court erred in denying that part of his omnibus motion seeking to suppress his statement made to the police is encompassed by defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833). Although defendant’s contention that his plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent survives his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Zulian, 68 AD3d 1731, 1732, lv denied 14 NY3d 894), defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review inasmuch as he did not move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Watts, 78 AD3d 1593, lv denied 16 NY3d 838). Nor can it be said that this case falls within the rare exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666).

Entered: March 16, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

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

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

251 KA 09-01485 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, LINDLEY, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ANTWON M. WILLIAMS, ALSO KNOWN AS ANTWON Q. WILLIAMS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

KRISTIN F. SPLAIN, CONFLICT DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (KIMBERLY CZAPRANSKI OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL C. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (LESLIE E. SWIFT OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Frank P. Geraci, Jr., J.), rendered May 27, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the first degree.

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

Memorandum: Upon appeal from a judgment convicting him following his plea of guilty of burglary in the first degree (Penal Law § 140.30 [2]), defendant contends that his written waiver of his right to appeal, which he executed as part of the plea agreement, is not valid. We reject that contention (see People v Caraballo, 59 AD3d 971, lv denied 12 NY3d 852; People v Duncan, 267 AD2d 995, lv denied 94 NY2d 918). Defendant’s further contention that County Court erred in denying that part of his omnibus motion seeking to suppress his statement made to the police is encompassed by defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833). Although defendant’s contention that his plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent survives his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Zulian, 68 AD3d 1731, 1732, lv denied 14 NY3d 894), defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review inasmuch as he did not move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Watts, 78 AD3d 1593, lv denied 16 NY3d 838). Nor can it be said that this case falls within the rare exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666).

Entered: March 16, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

WILLIAMS, ANTWON M., PEOPLE v, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-antwon-m-people-v-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack