People v. Atkins, 2016–08174
| Decision Date | 24 January 2018 |
| Docket Number | 2016–08174,Ind. No. 15–00544 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Timothy V. ATKINS, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
157 A.D.3d 899
66 N.Y.S.3d 915 (Mem)
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Timothy V. ATKINS, appellant.
2016–08174
Ind. No. 15–00544
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Submitted—December 19, 2017
January 24, 2018
Michele Marte–Indzonka, Newburgh, NY, for appellant.
David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Middletown, N.Y. (Andrew R. Kass of counsel), for respondent.
L. PRISCILLA HALL, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SANDRA L. SGROI, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Craig Stephen Brown, J.), rendered July 13, 2016, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant pleaded guilty to grand larceny in the fourth degree in exchange for a promised sentence of six months in jail and a five-year period of probation. However, after the defendant violated a condition of the plea that he not be rearrested
prior to sentencing, the court imposed an indeterminate term of imprisonment of one to three years.
The defendant's contention that he was coerced into admitting to the violation of a plea condition, while not precluded by his appeal waiver (see People v. Bracy, 131 A.D.3d 538, 539, 15 N.Y.S.3d 397 ; People v. Ricketts, 27 A.D.3d 488, 489, 811 N.Y.S.2d 103 ), is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Bracy, 131 A.D.3d at 539, 15 N.Y.S.3d 397 ; People v. Arrington, 94 A.D.3d 903, 941 N.Y.S.2d 877 ; cf. People v. Weston, 145 A.D.3d 746, 747, 43 N.Y.S.3d 413 ; People v. Holcombe, 116 A.D.3d 1063, 983 N.Y.S.2d 875 ). In any event, the contention is not supported by the record, which does not reflect that the defendant was coerced, but only that the sentencing court informed the defendant of what the People's sentencing recommendation would be if he admitted to the violation and committed to accept the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Adams
...to the court's charge did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel (see People v. Hankerson, 149 A.D.3d 778, 51 N.Y.S.3d 169 ).157 A.D.3d 899The defendant's contention that he was deprived of his right to present a defense by the Supreme Court's curtailment of his cross-examination ......
-
People v. Driver
...matter outside the record, a CPL 440.10 proceeding is the appropriate forum for reviewing the claim in its entirety (see People v Atkins, 157 A.D.3d 899, 899-900 [2018]; People v Direnzo, 134 A.D.3d 851, 851 [2015]; People v Freeman, 93 A.D.3d 805, 806 [2012]). Contrary to defendant's conte......
-
People v. Driver
... ... record, a CPL 440.10 proceeding is the appropriate forum for ... reviewing the claim in its entirety (see People v ... Atkins, 157 A.D.3d 899, 899-900 [2018]; People v ... Direnzo, 134 A.D.3d 851, 851 [2015]; People v ... Freeman, 93 A.D.3d 805, 806 [2012]) ... ...
-
People v. Ackridge
...to proceed pro se at his arraignment, as neither of these contentions implicates the voluntariness of his plea (see People v. Atkins , 157 A.D.3d 899, 66 N.Y.S.3d 915 ; People v. Amay , 156 A.D.3d 895, 65 N.Y.S.3d 804 ; see also People v. Gordon , 89 A.D.3d 1466, 932 N.Y.S.2d 410 ; People v......