People v. Shea

Decision Date01 October 1998
Citation679 N.Y.S.2d 428,254 A.D.2d 512
Parties1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 8081 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James T. SHEA, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

John Doherty, Cohoes, for appellant.

Nicholas E. Tishler, Special Prosecutor, Ballston Spa, for respondent.

Before CARDONA, P.J., and PETERS, SPAIN, CARPINELLO and GRAFFEO, JJ.

CARPINELLO, Justice.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Saratoga County (Seibert Jr., J.), rendered August 16, 1996, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of grand larceny in the second degree.

In satisfaction of a 13-count indictment charging him with various theft-related crimes, defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of grand larceny in the second degree without agreeing to a specific sentence. During his plea allocution, defendant executed a written waiver of his right to appeal but was not specifically questioned by County Court as to whether he understood its terms. He was thereafter sentenced to a prison term of 3 1/3 to 10 years. Defendant appeals, arguing that County Court's failure to inquire into whether he understood the written waiver and its consequences invalidated the waiver, thus permitting this challenge to the severity of his sentence.

Initially, we find that defendant effectively waived his right to appeal. The failure to conduct an on-the-record inquiry into whether an appeal waiver is voluntary will not invalidate the waiver where the record demonstrates that the defendant understood and willingly accepted its terms (see, People v. Moissett, 76 N.Y.2d 909, 911, 563 N.Y.S.2d 43, 564 N.E.2d 653; People v. Harris, 242 A.D.2d 782, 661 N.Y.S.2d 315, lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 1008, 676 N.Y.S.2d 136, 698 N.E.2d 965). Here, defense counsel stated his understanding that defendant was waiving his right to appeal as a condition of the plea agreement. Thereafter, County Court inquired into whether defendant understood counsel's statements and defendant answered in the affirmative. The court then conducted an additional inquiry in order to insure that defendant had no questions regarding the consequences of his guilty plea. Moreover, the written waiver which defendant signed at the conclusion of the plea allocution explained the rights that he was waiving and stated that, after consulting with counsel, he elected to waive his right to appeal "willingly, knowingly and intelligently". These circumstances demonstrate that defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see, People v. Moissett, supra, at 911, 563 N.Y.S.2d 43, 564 N.E.2d 653).

This finding, however, does...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • People v. George
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 13 Mayo 1999
    ...v. Ubrich, 245 A.D.2d 886, 887, 666 N.Y.S.2d 825, lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 945, 671 N.Y.S.2d 725, 694 N.E.2d 894; People v. Shea, 254 A.D.2d 512, 512-513, 679 N.Y.S.2d 428, 428-429; People v. Wilmer, 191 A.D.2d 850, 595 N.Y.S.2d 123, lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 1022, 600 N.Y.S.2d 210, 616 N.E.2d 867).......
  • People v. Edie
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 29 Noviembre 2012
    ...822;People v. Powers, 302 A.D.2d at 686, 756 N.Y.S.2d 296;People v. Ballinger, 299 A.D.2d at 739, 751 N.Y.S.2d 112;People v. Shea, 254 A.D.2d 512, 513, 679 N.Y.S.2d 428 [1998] ). ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.[100 A.D.3d 1263]PETERS, P.J., ROSE, MALONE JR. and STEIN, JJ.,...
  • People v. Card
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 6 Marzo 2014
    ...S.Ct. 1035, ––– L.Ed.2d –––– [2014]; [981 N.Y.S.2d 830]People v. Arquette, 281 A.D.2d 652, 652, 720 N.Y.S.2d 852 [2001];People v. Shea, 254 A.D.2d 512, 513, 679 N.Y.S.2d 428 [1998] ). ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.PETERS, P.J., STEIN and EGAN JR., JJ., ...
  • People v. Forkey
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 8 Abril 2010
    ...receive and the possibility of consecutive sentences ( see People v. Tesar, 65 A.D.3d 716, 717, 883 N.Y.S.2d 803 [2009]; People v. Shea, 254 A.D.2d 512, 513, 679 N.Y.S.2d 428 [1998] ). Upon our review of defendant's sentence, we agree that it is unduly harsh. While defendant's admitted pres......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT