People v. Andrea
| Citation | 949 N.Y.S.2d 654,98 A.D.3d 627,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 05979 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Dean R. ANDREA, appellant. |
| Decision Date | 15 August 2012 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
98 A.D.3d 627
949 N.Y.S.2d 654
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 05979
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Dean R. ANDREA, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Aug. 15, 2012.
Del Atwell, East Hampton, N.Y., for appellant.
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Marion M. Tang of counsel), for respondent.
[98 A.D.3d 627]Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Condon, J.), rendered February 10, 2011, convicting him of criminal mischief in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw his plea on this ground prior to the imposition of sentence ( see CPL 220.60[3]; 470.05[2]; People v. Clarke, 93 N.Y.2d 904, 906, 690 N.Y.S.2d 501, 712 N.E.2d 668;People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5;People v. Hayes, 91 A.D.3d 792, 936 N.Y.S.2d 902;People v. Kulmatycski, 83 A.D.3d 734, 735, 920 N.Y.S.2d 670;People v. Rusielewicz, 45 A.D.3d 704, 846 N.Y.S.2d 243). In any event, the defendant acknowledged at the plea proceeding that he understood the sentencing promise. The record reveals that the defendant agreed to the plea bargain and did so voluntarily, with a full appreciation of the consequences thereof, and upon the competent advice of counsel ( see People v. Bookard, 68 A.D.3d 1128, 1129, 890 N.Y.S.2d 343).
To the extent that the defendant contends that ineffective assistance of counsel affected the voluntariness of his plea, the record demonstrates that he pleaded guilty to the top count in [98 A.D.3d 628]the indictment in exchange for the minimum indeterminate sentence of imprisonment authorized by law, which was executed as a sentence of
parole supervision, and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel ( see CPL 410.91; People v. Duah, 91 A.D.3d 884, 885, 936 N.Y.S.2d 907;People v. Yarborough, 83 A.D.3d 875, 920 N.Y.S.2d 681).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
DILLON, J.P., BALKIN, BELEN and AUSTIN, JJ., concur.To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Solis
...and the direct consequences of his plea ( see People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 16–17, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170;People v. Andrea, 98 A.D.3d 627, 949 N.Y.S.2d 654;People v. Lu Yang Tong, 238 A.D.2d 607, 657 N.Y.S.2d 960). In support of his motion to withdraw his plea, the defendant's new......
-
People v. Etienne
...entered but rather the result of certain coercive conduct by the Supreme Court is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Andrea, 98 A.D.3d 627, 627, 949 N.Y.S.2d 654 ). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit (see Boreali v. Axelrod, 71 N.Y.2d 1, 8–9, 523 N.Y.S.2d......
-
People v. Cohen
...of sentence ( seeCPL 220.60[3], 470.05[2]; People v. Clarke, 93 N.Y.2d 904, 906, 690 N.Y.S.2d 501, 712 N.E.2d 668;People v. Andrea, 98 A.D.3d 627, 627, 949 N.Y.S.2d 654;People v. Hayes, 91 A.D.3d 792, 792, 936 N.Y.S.2d 902;People v. Kulmatycski, 83 A.D.3d 734, 734, 920 N.Y.S.2d 670;People v......
-
People v. Hernandez
...v. Clarke, 93 N.Y.2d 904, 906, 690 N.Y.S.2d 501, 712 N.E.2d 668;People v. Devodier, 102 A.D.3d 884, 958 N.Y.S.2d 220;People v. Andrea, 98 A.D.3d 627, 949 N.Y.S.2d 654). Furthermore, the “rare case” exception to the preservation rule does not apply here, since the defendant's plea allocution......