People v. Jackson

Decision Date13 February 2014
Citation114 A.D.3d 807,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 01018,979 N.Y.S.2d 704
PartiesThe PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Robert L. JACKSON, appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Mark Diamond, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Thomas C. Costello of counsel), for respondent.

PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County(Braslow, J.), rendered September 8, 2011, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and kidnapping in the second 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 or voluntarily entered is unpreserved for appellate review because he did not move to vacate his plea or otherwise raise the issue in the County Court( seeCPL 470.05[2];People v. Folger,110 A.D.3d 736, 971 N.Y.S.2d 890;People v. Nugent,109 A.D.3d 625, 970 N.Y.S.2d 634;cf.People v. Tyrell,22 N.Y.3d 359, 981 N.Y.S.2d 336, 4 N.E.3d 346[2013] ).In any event, the contention is without merit.Although the defendant was not advised by the County Court of each of the federal constitutional rights he was waiving by pleading guilty, a plea of guilty “will not be invalidated ‘solely because the Trial Judge failed to specifically enumerate all the rights to which the defendant was entitled and to elicit from him or her a list of detailed waivers before accepting the guilty plea’(People v. Tyrell,22 N.Y.3d 359, 365, 981 N.Y.S.2d 336, 4 N.E.3d 346, 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 08288, *5, quotingPeople v. Harris,61 N.Y.2d 9, 16, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170).Here, since the defendant was expressly advised by the County Court that a plea of guilty involved the waiver of certain constitutional rights, and in light of the defendant's background, the rationality of the plea, and the other assurances of voluntariness provided on the record, the record as a whole reflected a knowing and voluntary plea of guilty and waiver of constitutional rights ( seePeople v. Harris,61 N.Y.2d at 21–22, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170;People v. Sargent,100 A.D.2d 978, 475 N.Y.S.2d 117;People v. Mitchell,121 A.D.2d 403, 502 N.Y.S.2d 805).

Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant's challenge to his adjudication as a second felony offender is not precluded by his purported waiver of his right to appeal since that waiver was invalid ( seePeople v. Elmer,19 N.Y.3d 501, 950 N.Y.S.2d 77, 973 N.E.2d 172;People v. Salgado,111 A.D.3d 859, 975 N.Y.S.2d 172;People v. Oquendo,105 A.D.3d 447, 447–448, 963 N.Y.S.2d 71;People v. Grant,83 A.D.3d 862, 863, 921 N.Y.S.2d 285).During the plea proceeding, the defendant was merely told by the County Court that it “want[ed] him to waive his right to appeal and that, after sentencing, the case would be over ( seePeople v. Boustani,300 A.D.2d 313, 314, 752 N.Y.S.2d 683[“bare inquiry” that defendant understood that he was waiving his right to appeal was insufficient to produce a valid waiver];see alsoPeople v. Salgado,111 A.D.3d at 859, 975 N.Y.S.2d 172[“terse colloquy at the plea allocution failed to sufficiently advise the defendant of the nature of his right to appeal”];People v. Nugent,109 A.D.3d at 625–626, 970 N.Y.S.2d 634;People v. Gheradi,68 A.D.3d 892, 893, 890 N.Y.S.2d 122).Further, the court's statement—“do you understand that when I sentence you, I want you to give up or waive your right to appeal”—failed to make clear that the waiver of the right to appeal was a condition imposed by the plea agreement, and one to which the defendant was voluntarily agreeing ( seePeople v. Oquendo,105 A.D.3d at 447–448, 963 N.Y.S.2d 71[“By conflating the waiver of appeal with the sentence to be imposed, the court failed to adequately ensure that defendant had a ‘full appreciation of the consequences of [the] waiver’] ).Lastly, the defendant's written waiver did not cure the defects in the oral colloquy.To the contrary, it is not clear from this record that the defendant, who did not personally sign the waiver, even read the waiver, discussed it with counsel, or was aware of its contents ( seePeople v. Callahan,80 N.Y.2d 273, 283, 590 N.Y.S.2d 46, 604 N.E.2d 108;People v. Elmer,19 N.Y.3d 501, 950 N.Y.S.2d 77, 973 N.E.2d 172;People v. Grant,83 A.D.3d 862, 863, 921 N.Y.S.2d 285;People v. McCaskell,206 A.D.2d 547, 548, 615 N.Y.S.2d 55).Moreover, the waiver did not contain any explanation of the nature of the right to appeal or the...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
63 cases
  • People v. Sirico
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 28 Octubre 2015
    ...168, 182, 980 N.Y.S.2d 280, 3 N.E.3d 617 ; People v. Clarke, 93 N.Y.2d 904, 906, 690 N.Y.S.2d 501, 712 N.E.2d 668 ; People v. Jackson, 114 A.D.3d 807, 979 N.Y.S.2d 704 ; People v. Ovalle, 112 A.D.3d 971, 977 N.Y.S.2d 401 ; People v. Devodier, 102 A.D.3d 884, 958 N.Y.S.2d 220 ; cf. People v.......
  • People v. Stevens
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 17 Abril 2019
    ...obtained, and he has not alleged any grounds to controvert the prior violent felony offender statement (see People v. Jackson, 114 A.D.3d 807, 979 N.Y.S.2d 704 ; People v. Sanabria, 110 A.D.3d 1012, 973 N.Y.S.2d 324 ; People v. Chase, 101 A.D.3d 1141, 955 N.Y.S.2d 891 ; People v. McAllister......
  • People v. Camarda
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 13 Abril 2016
    ...; People v. Sirico, 135 A.D.3d at 22, 18 N.Y.S.3d 430 ; People v. Isaiah S., 130 A.D.3d at 1082, 13 N.Y.S.3d 840 ; People v. Jackson, 114 A.D.3d 807, 807–808, 979 N.Y.S.2d 704 ). While a defendant who has validly waived the right to appeal cannot invoke this Court's interest of justice juri......
  • People v. Huntley
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 7 Noviembre 2019
    ...136 A.D.3d 1069, 1070, 24 N.Y.S.3d 440 [2016], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 1002, 38 N.Y.S.3d 112, 59 N.E.3d 1224 [2016] ; People v. Jackson, 114 A.D.3d 807, 809, 979 N.Y.S.2d 704 [2014], lv denied 22 N.Y.3d 1199, 986 N.Y.S.2d 420, 9 N.E.3d 915 [2014] ). In any event, the court was not obligated to ......
  • Get Started for Free

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