People v. Bunn

• Decision Date: 28 December 2010
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Ashanti BUNN, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

914 N.Y.S.2d 907
79 A.D.3d 1143

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Ashanti BUNN, appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Dec. 28, 2010.

Salvatore C. Adamo, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Joan H. McCarthy of counsel), for respondent.

79 A.D.3d 1143

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.), rendered April 14, 2010, convicting him of manslaughter 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 knowing, voluntary, and intelligent is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw the plea ( see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5; People v. Nowell, 46 A.D.3d 707, 848 N.Y.S.2d 242; People v. Martinez, 33 A.D.3d 631, 632, 821 N.Y.S.2d 660; People v. Pryor, 11 A.D.3d 565, 566, 782 N.Y.S.2d 803). In any event, the plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made ( see People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 543, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646; People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d at 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5; People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 17, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170).

The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel as a consequence of his attorney's failure to make a motion to withdraw his plea based on his post-plea statements appearing in the presentence investigation report is without merit. The defendant's post-plea assertions regarding the defense of justification did not warrant vacatur of his plea of guilty ( see People v. Dixon, 29 N.Y.2d 55, 57, 323 N.Y.S.2d 825, 272 N.E.2d 329; People v. Modesto, 39 A.D.3d 567, 835 N.Y.S.2d 220; People v. Tinsley, 32 A.D.3d 447, 820 N.Y.S.2d 305; People v. Eaton, 14 A.D.3d 577, 789 N.Y.S.2d 194; People v. Richardson, 13 A.D.3d 561, 787 N.Y.S.2d 373). There can be no deprivation of effective assistance of counsel arising from counsel's failure to make a motion which had little or no chance of success ( see People v. Terrell, 78 A.D.3d 865, 910 N.Y.S.2d 368; People v. Goddard, 72 A.D.3d 839, 840, 898 N.Y.S.2d 637). The

914 N.Y.S.2d 908

defendant received an advantageous plea, and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel ( see People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397, 404, 633 N.Y.S.2d 270, 657 N.E.2d 265; People v. Hughes, 62 A.D.3d 1026...