People v. Ingram

• Decision Date: 18 January 2011
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Rashaan INGRAM, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

914 N.Y.S.2d 316
80 A.D.3d 713

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Rashaan INGRAM, appellant.

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

Jan. 18, 2011.

914 N.Y.S.2d 317

Salvatore C. Adamo, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Bridget Rahilly Steller of counsel), for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, ARIEL E. BELEN, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.

80 A.D.3d 713

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered November 25, 2009, convicting him of attempted robbery in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contentions that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent, and that the plea allocution was factually insufficient, are unpreserved for appellate review since he failed to move to withdraw his plea ( see

80 A.D.3d 714

People v. Clarke, 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. Duncan, 78 A.D.3d 1193, 912 N.Y.S.2d 283; People v. Villalobos, 71 A.D.3d 924, 895 N.Y.S.2d 867; People v. Nowell, 46 A.D.3d 707, 848 N.Y.S.2d 242). Furthermore, the defendant's recitation of

914 N.Y.S.2d 318

the facts underlying the crime of attempted robbery in the third degree did not cast significant doubt upon his guilt or otherwise call into question the voluntariness of the plea ( see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d at 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5). The record reveals that the defendant's plea was factually sufficient, and was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently ( see People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170). Furthermore, the defendant's post-plea statements of innocence made to his probation officer which appear in the presentence investigation report did not warrant vacatur of his plea ( see People v. Dixon, 29 N.Y.2d 55, 57, 323 N.Y.S.2d 825, 272 N.E.2d 329; People v. Morales, 17 A.D.3d 487, 795 N.Y.S.2d 240; People v. Eaton, 14 A.D.3d 577, 789 N.Y.S.2d 194; People v. Richardson, 13 A.D.3d 561, 787 N.Y.S.2d 373). Notably, after the sentencing court questioned the defendant concerning his statements to the probation officer, the defendant readily admitted his guilt ( see People v. James, 192 A.D.2d 555, 556, 596 N.Y.S.2d 100; People v. Figueroa, 146 A.D.2d 798, 799, 538 N.Y.S.2d 471).

The defendant's contention that he was...