People v. Hayes
| Decision Date | 17 January 2012 |
| Citation | 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 00387,936 N.Y.S.2d 902,91 A.D.3d 792 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Ralphie HAYES, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 00387
91 A.D.3d 792
936 N.Y.S.2d 902
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Ralphie HAYES, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jan. 17, 2012.
Salvatore C. Adamo, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Bridget Rahilly Steller of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered April 2, 2009, convicting him of robbery in the third 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 made is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw his plea on that ground prior to sentencing ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Gantt, 85 A.D.3d 815, 816, 924 N.Y.S.2d 821). In any event, his 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).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of *903 counsel is without merit ( see People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397, 404, 633 N.Y.S.2d 270, 657 N.E.2d 265).
Since the defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive the sentence which was thereafter actually imposed, he has no basis to now complain that the sentence imposed was excessive ( see People v. Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816, 817, 475 N.Y.S.2d 351).
RIVERA, J.P., ENG, CHAMBERS, SGROI and MILLER, JJ., concur.To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Gibson
...93 N.Y.2d 904, 906, 690 N.Y.S.2d 501, 712 N.E.2d 668;People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5;People v. Hayes, 91 A.D.3d 792, 936 N.Y.S.2d 902;People v. Kulmatycski, 83 A.D.3d 734, 920 N.Y.S.2d 670;People v. Rusielewicz, 45 A.D.3d 704, 846 N.Y.S.2d 243). Furthermo......
-
People v. Mejia
...v. Clarke, 93 N.Y.2d 904, 906, 690 N.Y.S.2d 501, 712 N.E.2d 668; People v. Cullum, 93 A.D.3d 856, 940 N.Y.S.2d 872; People v. Hayes, 91 A.D.3d 792, 936 N.Y.S.2d 902; People v. Kulmatycski, 83 A.D.3d 734, 920 N.Y.S.2d 670). Furthermore, the “rare case” exception to the preservation requireme......
-
People v. Appling
...N.Y.2d 904, 906, 690 N.Y.S.2d 501, 712 N.E.2d 668; People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5; People v. Hayes, 91 A.D.3d 792, 936 N.Y.S.2d 902; People v. Kulmatycski, 83 A.D.3d 734, 735, 920 N.Y.S.2d 670; People v. Rusielewicz, 45 A.D.3d 704, 846 N.Y.S.2d 243). In ......
-
People v. Cohen
...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, 627, 949 N.Y.S.2d 654;People v. Hayes, 91 A.D.3d 792, 792, 936 N.Y.S.2d 902;People v. Kulmatycski, 83 A.D.3d 734, 734, 920 N.Y.S.2d 670;People v. Rusielewicz, 45 A.D.3d 704, 704, 846 N.Y.S.2d 24......