People v. Cooks
| Decision Date | 05 June 2013 |
| Citation | 966 N.Y.S.2d 211,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 04020,107 A.D.3d 734 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Kashone COOKS, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Michael A. Fiechter, Bellmore, N.Y., for appellant.
Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Jason R. Richards and Kevin C. King of counsel), for respondent.
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, SANDRA L. SGROI, and SYLVIA HINDS–RADIX, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Honorof, J.), rendered January 11, 2012, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the amended judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretionin denying, without a hearing, the defendant's motions to withdraw his plea of guilty. The defendant's unsupported and conclusory allegations that defense counsel failed to investigate and uncover potentially exculpatory evidence did not warrant the vacatur of his plea of guilty ( see People v. Maye, 64 A.D.3d 617, 618, 881 N.Y.S.2d 322;People v. Mitchell, 187 A.D.2d 676, 591 N.Y.S.2d 788;People v. Bourdonnay, 160 A.D.2d 1014, 1015, 555 N.Y.S.2d 134).
The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not voluntarily entered because he was not advised, at the time he entered his plea, that he would be assessed a mandatory surcharge, crime victim assistance fee, and DNA databank fee, and that a DNA sample would be taken, is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v. Murray, 15 N.Y.3d 725, 726–727, 906 N.Y.S.2d 521, 932 N.E.2d 877) and, in any event, without merit, since those assessments were not components of the defendant's sentence ( see People v. Hoti, 12 N.Y.3d 742, 743, 878 N.Y.S.2d 645, 906 N.E.2d 373;People v. Guerrero, 12 N.Y.3d 45, 876 N.Y.S.2d 687, 904 N.E.2d 823).
The defendant's remaining contentions rest on matter dehors the record and therefore cannot be reviewed on direct appeal ( see People v. Maye, 64 A.D.3d at 618, 881 N.Y.S.2d 322;People v. DeLuca, 45 A.D.3d 777, 847 N.Y.S.2d 198).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Bernardini
...sentencing survive his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Kumar, 127 A.D.3d 882, 883, 4 N.Y.S.3d 900 ; People v. Cedeno, 107 A.D.3d 734, 734, 965 N.Y.S.2d 887 ). However, the defendant's contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Nieves, ......
-
People v. Bautista
...742, 743, 878 N.Y.S.2d 645, 906 N.E.2d 373 ; People v. Guerrero, 12 N.Y.3d 45, 48–49, 876 N.Y.S.2d 687, 904 N.E.2d 823 ; People v. Cooks, 107 A.D.3d 734, 735, 966 N.Y.S.2d 211 ).The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).RIVERA, J.P., DILL......
-
Rosin v. Weinberg
...the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine [966 N.Y.S.2d 211]only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” ( Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 87–88, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972, 638 N.E.2d......
-
People v. Cedeno
...107 A.D.3d 734965 N.Y.S.2d 8872013 N.Y. Slip Op. 04019The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,v.Luis CEDENO, appellant.Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.June 5, Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (David P. Greenberg of counsel), for appellant.Charles J. Hynes, District Attorn......