People v. Blankenbaker
| Decision Date | 02 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | 110484 |
| Citation | 197 A.D.3d 1353,150 N.Y.S.3d 631 (Mem) |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William F. BLANKENBAKER III, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
197 A.D.3d 1353
150 N.Y.S.3d 631 (Mem)
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
William F. BLANKENBAKER III, Appellant.
110484
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Calendar Date: August 19, 2021
Decided and Entered: September 2, 2021
Stephen J. Carney, Schenectady, for appellant.
Lorraine Diamond, District Attorney, Fonda (James P. Melita of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Clark, Aarons and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Clark, J.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Montgomery County (Catena, J.), rendered April 23, 2018, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal contempt in the first degree.
In satisfaction of a two-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal contempt in the first degree. County Court thereafter sentenced defendant, as a second felony offender, to a prison term of 1½ to 3 years. Defendant appeals.
Defendant's contention that the plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent is
unpreserved for our review as the record does not reflect that an appropriate postallocution motion was made (see People v. Brown, 191 A.D.3d 1047, 1047, 137 N.Y.S.3d 748 [2021] ; People v. Botts, 191 A.D.3d 1044, 1045, 140 N.Y.S.3d 632 [2021], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 1095, 144 N.Y.S.3d 123, 167 N.E.3d 1258 [2021] ). We are unpersuaded by defendant's assertion that statements he made during the plea colloquy and at sentencing negated an element of the crime, were inconsistent with his guilt or otherwise called into question the voluntariness of his plea, so as to trigger the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 [1988] ).
As relevant here, a defendant commits the offense of criminal contempt in the first degree when he or she intentionally disobeys an order of protection of which he or she has actual knowledge because he or she was present in court when the order was issued, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Belcher-Cumba
...motion, defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his plea is unpreserved for our review (see People v. Blankenbaker, 197 A.D.3d 1353, 1354, 150 N.Y.S.3d 631 [2021] ; People v. Brewster, 194 A.D.3d 1266, 1267, 144 N.Y.S.3d 402 [2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 970, 150 N.Y.S.3d 690, 172 N.E.3......
-
People v. Blair
...590 [2021], lv denied ––– N.Y.3d ––––, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, ––– N.E.3d ––––, 2022 WL 1478682 [Apr. 20, 2022] ; People v. Blankenbaker, 197 A.D.3d 1353, 1354, 150 N.Y.S.3d 631 [2021] ). As to the plea, we note that the narrow exception to the preservation rule was triggered by defendant's stat......
-
People v. Chrise
...; People v. Howell, 178 A.D.3d 1148, 1149, 115 N.Y.S.3d 498 [2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 1129, 118 N.Y.S.3d 544, 141 N.E.3d 500 [2020] ).150 N.Y.S.3d 631 Finally, given that defendant is a predicate felony offender who was convicted on his guilty plea of a drug-related felony under Penal Law......
-
People v. Belcher-Cumba
... ... This appeal ... ensued ... Absent ... evidence of an appropriate postallocution motion, ... defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his plea is ... unpreserved for our review (see People v ... Blankenbaker, 197 A.D.3d 1353, 1354 [2021]; People v ... Brewster, 194 A.D.3d 1266, 1267 [2021], lv ... denied 37 N.Y.3d 970 [2021]), and the narrow exception ... to the preservation requirement was not triggered here, ... "as the record does not reflect that defendant made any ... ...