People v. Goossens

Citation92 A.D.3d 1282,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 01300,938 N.Y.S.2d 486
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Carl GOOSSENS, Defendant–Appellant. (Appeal No. 2.)
Decision Date17 February 2012
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 01300
92 A.D.3d 1282
938 N.Y.S.2d 486

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Carl GOOSSENS, Defendant–Appellant.
(Appeal No. 2.)

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

Feb. 17, 2012.


Appeal from a judgment of the Livingston County Court (Robert B. Wiggins, J.), rendered January 9, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of rape in the third degree.John E. Tyo, Shortsville, for defendant-appellant.

Thomas E. Moran, District Attorney, Geneseo (Eric R. Schiener of Counsel), for respondent.

[938 N.Y.S.2d 487]

MEMORANDUM:

[92 A.D.3d 1283] Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of rape in the third degree (Penal Law § 130.25[2] ). We reject defendant's contention that his waiver of the right to appeal was invalid ( see generally People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145). Although defendant's further contention that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered survives his valid waiver of the right to appeal, defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review ( see People v. Davis, 45 A.D.3d 1357, 844 N.Y.S.2d 739, lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 1005, 850 N.Y.S.2d 393, 880 N.E.2d 879; People v. Jones, 42 A.D.3d 968, 840 N.Y.S.2d 860). Contrary to defendant's contention, this case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation requirement set forth in People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5, “inasmuch as nothing in the plea colloquy casts significant doubt on defendant's guilt or the voluntariness of the plea” ( People v. Lewandowski, 82 A.D.3d 1602, 1602, 919 N.Y.S.2d 623; see Jones, 42 A.D.3d 968, 840 N.Y.S.2d 860). Defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses his further contention that County Court failed to afford him sufficient time to retain a new attorney ( see People v. La Bar, 16 A.D.3d 1084, 791 N.Y.S.2d 233, lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 764, 801 N.Y.S.2d 259, 834 N.E.2d 1269; People v. Morgan, 275 A.D.2d 970, 715 N.Y.S.2d 190, lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 761, 725 N.Y.S.2d 288, 748 N.E.2d 1084) and, in any event, defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review ( see CPL 470.05[2] ). Finally, the challenge by defendant to the court's suppression ruling is also encompassed by his valid waiver of the right to appeal ( see People v. Kemp, 94 N.Y.2d 831, 833, 703 N.Y.S.2d 59, 724 N.E.2d 754; People v. Bell, 89 A.D.3d 1518, 932 N.Y.S.2d 745...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • People v. Goossens
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • February 17, 2012
    ...We reject that contention. The court made the requisite “ ‘minimal inquiry’ ” into defendant's reasons for requesting new counsel [92 A.D.3d 1282] ( People v. Porto, 16 N.Y.3d 93, 100, 917 N.Y.S.2d 74, 942 N.E.2d 283; see People v. Adger, 83 A.D.3d 1590, 1591–1592, 921 N.Y.S.2d 436, lv. den......
  • People v. Robinson
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 27, 2013
    ...by his valid waiver of the right to appeal ( see People v. Kemp, 94 N.Y.2d 831, 833, 703 N.Y.S.2d 59, 724 N.E.2d 754; People v. Goossens, 92 A.D.3d 1282, 1283, 938 N.Y.S.2d 486, lv. denied19 N.Y.3d 960, 950 N.Y.S.2d 112, 973 N.E.2d 210). Although defendant's contention that his guilty plea ......
  • People v. Rodriguez
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 8, 2013
    ...encompassed by that valid waiver of the right to appeal ( see Kemp, 94 N.Y.2d at 833, 703 N.Y.S.2d 59, 724 N.E.2d 754;People v. Goossens, 92 A.D.3d 1282, 1283, 938 N.Y.S.2d 486,lv. denied19 N.Y.3d 960, 950 N.Y.S.2d 112, 973 N.E.2d 210). It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed fro......
  • People v. Goossens
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • June 14, 2012
    ...N.E.2d 210950 N.Y.S.2d 112Peoplev.Carl GoossensCourt of Appeals of New YorkJune 14, 2012 OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE 4th Dept.: 92 A.D.3d 1282, 938 N.Y.S.2d 486 (Livingston)Ciparick, J. ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT