People v. Duchatellier
| Decision Date | 13 April 2016 |
| Citation | 138 A.D.3d 887,28 N.Y.S.3d 332 (Mem) |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Peterson W. DUCHATELLIER, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Bruce A. Petito, Poughkeepsie, N.Y., for appellant.
David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Middletown, N.Y. (Elizabeth L. Schulz and Andrew R. Kass of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (De Rosa, J.), rendered November 19, 2014, convicting him of assault in the first 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 entered 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] ; 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, 949 N.Y.S.2d 654 ). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here because the defendant's plea allocution did not cast significant doubt upon his guilt, negate an essential element of the crime, or call into question the voluntariness of the plea (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ; People v. Gibson, 95 A.D.3d 1033, 944 N.Y.S.2d 237 ).
The defendant's contentions regarding the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution and the excessiveness of his sentence are precluded by his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Sanders, 25 N.Y.3d 337, 340–341, 12 N.Y.S.3d 593, 34 N.E.3d 344 ; People v. Ramos, 7 N.Y.3d 737, 819 N.Y.S.2d 853, 853 N.E.2d 222 ; People v. Crews, 92 A.D.3d 795, 938 N.Y.S.2d 475 ; People v. Hardee, 84 A.D.3d 835, 922 N.Y.S.2d 785 ). The defendant's contention regarding the evidence presented before the grand jury is precluded both by his plea of guilty (see People v. Konieczny, 2 N.Y.3d 569, 572, 780 N.Y.S.2d 546, 813 N.E.2d 626 ; People v. Hansen, 95 N.Y.2d 227, 233, 715 N.Y.S.2d 369, 738 N.E.2d 773 ; People v. Woods, 115 A.D.3d 997, 982 N.Y.S.2d 180 ) and his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Guerrero, 126 A.D.3d 613, 614, 3 N.Y.S.3d 600 ; People v. Howard, 119 A.D.3d 1090, 1091, 988 N.Y.S.2d 726 ).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Starnes
...that [County Court] denied a request made by him, or that the failure to record the proceedings prejudiced him" (People v Coward, 138 A.D.3d at 887; see People v Jenkins, 90 A.D.3d at 1329). Although defendant speculates as to how trial counsel's voir dire could have prejudiced him, the rec......
- People v. Palladino
-
People v. Rifino
...sufficiency of the plea allocution under the SCI is precluded by his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Duchatellier, 138 A.D.3d 887, 888, 28 N.Y.S.3d 332 ; People v. Lincoln, 124 A.D.3d 803, 803, 998 N.Y.S.2d 651 ). While the defendant's claim with respect to the voluntarin......
-
People v. Coward
...105 ). Here, although the Supreme Court's questioning of the prospective jurors was stenographically recorded, the attorneys' ensuing 138 A.D.3d 887 questioning was not. The defendant, however, did not show that he made a request for the continuing voir dire to be recorded, that the Supreme......