People v. Jamison

• Decision Date: 19 March 2010
• Citation: 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 02227,896 N.Y.S.2d 780,71 A.D.3d 1435
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,v.Christopher JAMISON, Defendant–Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.)
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

71 A.D.3d 1435
896 N.Y.S.2d 780
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 02227

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Christopher JAMISON, Defendant–Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.)

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

March 19, 2010.

[896 N.Y.S.2d 780]

Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Philip Rothschild of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (Victoria M. White of Counsel), for Respondent.PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND LINDLEY, JJ.

[896 N.Y.S.2d 781]

MEMORANDUM:

[71 A.D.3d 1436] In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of three counts of attempted aggravated murder (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 125.26[1][a][i] ). We reject at the outset the contention of defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal is void as against public policy ( see People v. Muniz, 91 N.Y.2d 570, 575, 673 N.Y.S.2d 358, 696 N.E.2d 182). Also contrary to the contention of defendant, the record establishes that his waiver of the right to appeal was voluntary, knowing and intelligent ( see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145; People v. Grimes, 53 A.D.3d 1055, 1055–1056, 860 N.Y.S.2d 723, lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 789, 866 N.Y.S.2d 615, 896 N.E.2d 101).

The further contention of defendant that his plea was not voluntary, knowing and intelligent because he did not recite the underlying facts of the crimes to which he pleaded guilty but simply replied to County Court's questions with monosyllabic responses is actually a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution. That challenge is encompassed by the valid waiver of the right to appeal ( see People v. Brown, 66 A.D.3d 1385, 885 N.Y.S.2d 660; People v. Peters, 59 A.D.3d 928, 873 N.Y.S.2d 397, lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 820, 881 N.Y.S.2d 27, 908 N.E.2d 935; People v. Bailey, 49 A.D.3d 1258, 852 N.Y.S.2d 892, lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 932, 862 N.Y.S.2d 338, 892 N.E.2d 404) and, in any event, defendant failed to preserve that challenge for our review by moving to withdraw the plea or by raising that ground in his motion to vacate the judgment of conviction ( see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5; Bailey, 49 A.D.3d at 1259, 852 N.Y.S.2d 892). With respect to the merits of that challenge, we note that “there is no requirement that defendant recite the underlying facts of the crime[s] to which he is pleading guilty” ( Bailey, 49 A.D.3d...