People v. Graham

CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
Writing for the CourtBefore SULLIVAN
Citation575 N.Y.S.2d 715,177 A.D.2d 505
Decision Date04 November 1991
PartiesThe PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Michael GRAHAM a/k/a Richard Terry, Appellant.

Page 715

575 N.Y.S.2d 715
177 A.D.2d 505
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent,
v.
Michael GRAHAM a/k/a Richard Terry, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
Second Department.
Nov. 4, 1991.

Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Elon Harpaz, of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Jay M. Cohen and Michael Gore, of counsel; Matt Woodruff, on the brief), for respondent.

Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and BALLETTA, RITTER and COPERTINO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), rendered September 6, 1989, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree under Indictment Number 3577/89, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) a judgment of the same court, also rendered September 6, 1989, convicting him of robbery in the first degree under Indictment Number 6248/89, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the appeals are dismissed.

Following a trial, a jury found the defendant guilty of the crime of attempted robbery in the first degree under Indictment Number 3577/89. At sentencing thereon, the defense counsel informed the court that the defendant was ready to plead guilty to one count of robbery in the first degree in full satisfaction of Indictment Number 6248/89. As part of the plea bargain, the defendant explicitly waived his right to appeal to this court from both judgments of conviction. Indeed, the defendant expressly indicated that he wanted to bring both cases to an end and that he did not want to appeal. Moreover, the court did not accept the guilty plea until after it had fully explained to the defendant the nature of the right [177 A.D.2d 506] that he was giving up and not until after it had assured itself that the defendant was sure that he wanted to waive his right to appeal.

Page 716

The record reveals, therefore, that the defendant's waiver was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. The terms of the defendant's plea and sentencing bargain were placed on the record, were fair and were, in fact, extremely favorable to the defendant. Moreover, given the defendant's prior criminal background which included two prior felony convictions, the fact that he was certainly no stranger to the criminal justice system, and that he was represented by competent counsel, it is clear that he was well aware of his right to appeal and the significance of waiving it (see, People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 543...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • People v. Sanders
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • December 11, 2013
    ...27 years old and “no stranger to the criminal justice system” (People v. Korona, 197 A.D.2d 788, 790, 603 N.Y.S.2d 88; People v. Graham, 177 A.D.2d 505, 506, 575 N.Y.S.2d 715), having multiple prior convictions, including a federal conviction and a New York state felony conviction, the latt......
  • People v. Mitchell
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • February 7, 1994
    ...by the defendant indicated that the waiver of the right to appeal extended to the previous probation violation (cf., People v. Graham, 177 A.D.2d 505, 575 N.Y.S.2d Similarly unavailing is the claim of the Department of Probation that the present appeal should be dismissed because the defend......
  • People v. Fleury
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • November 4, 1991
    ...simply so that a verdict could be reached. The record reveals, however, that the supplemental instructions rendered in this case were [177 A.D.2d 505] essentially neutral, were directed at the jurors in general, and did not coerce the jurors to reach a verdict or to achieve a specific resul......
  • People v. Robinson
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 21, 1992
    ...v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022; People v. Velasquez, 181 A.D.2d 751, 581 N.Y.S.2d 76; People v. Graham, 177 A.D.2d 505, 575 N.Y.S.2d 715; People v. Cicciari, 175 A.D.2d 255, 572 N.Y.S.2d The defendant's plea of guilty was knowingly and voluntarily entered. Accord......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • People v. Sanders
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • December 11, 2013
    ...27 years old and “no stranger to the criminal justice system” (People v. Korona, 197 A.D.2d 788, 790, 603 N.Y.S.2d 88; People v. Graham, 177 A.D.2d 505, 506, 575 N.Y.S.2d 715), having multiple prior convictions, including a federal conviction and a New York state felony conviction, the latt......
  • People v. Mitchell
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • February 7, 1994
    ...by the defendant indicated that the waiver of the right to appeal extended to the previous probation violation (cf., People v. Graham, 177 A.D.2d 505, 575 N.Y.S.2d Similarly unavailing is the claim of the Department of Probation that the present appeal should be dismissed because the defend......
  • People v. Fleury
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • November 4, 1991
    ...simply so that a verdict could be reached. The record reveals, however, that the supplemental instructions rendered in this case were [177 A.D.2d 505] essentially neutral, were directed at the jurors in general, and did not coerce the jurors to reach a verdict or to achieve a specific resul......
  • People v. Robinson
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 21, 1992
    ...v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022; People v. Velasquez, 181 A.D.2d 751, 581 N.Y.S.2d 76; People v. Graham, 177 A.D.2d 505, 575 N.Y.S.2d 715; People v. Cicciari, 175 A.D.2d 255, 572 N.Y.S.2d The defendant's plea of guilty was knowingly and voluntarily entered. Accord......
  • 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