People v. Jerome
| Decision Date | 02 October 2013 |
| Citation | 972 N.Y.S.2d 102,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 06385,110 A.D.3d 739 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Richard JEROME, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Mark Diamond, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Sarah Rabinowitz and Courtney Weinberger of counsel; Matthew C. Frankel on the brief), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, SANDRA L. SGROI, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ayres, J.), rendered December 7, 2007, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence, including restitution in the sum of $11,194.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claim that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent is not preserved for appellate review inasmuch as he did not move to withdraw his plea ( seeCPL 220.60[3]; People v. Hernandez–Bautista, 89 A.D.3d 749, 931 N.Y.S.2d 907). This preservation requirement is excused only in the rare case when the plea colloquy itself casts “significant doubt” on the defendant's guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea ( People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5;People v. Rojas, 74 A.D.3d 1369, 1369, 903 N.Y.S.2d 258 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Here, the record does not cast significant doubt on the defendant's guilt or otherwise call into question the voluntariness of his plea ( see People v. Rojas, 74 A.D.3d at 1369, 903 N.Y.S.2d 258).
The defendant asserts that the Court erred in imposing restitution as part of the sentence, and requests that the restitution component of the sentence be vacated. The defendant's contentions are unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v. Thompson, 105 A.D.3d 1067, 963 N.Y.S.2d 406;People v. Fields, 101 A.D.3d 1043, 955 N.Y.S.2d 522). The defendant does not contend that his plea of guilty was rendered involuntary or unknowing due to any failure to advise him about restitution at the plea proceeding, and he does not seek to withdraw his plea on that ground. Thus, the defendant is not excused from the preservation requirement due to any lack of opportunity at the sentencing proceeding to move to withdraw his plea ( see People v. McAlpin, 17 N.Y.3d 936, 936 N.Y.S.2d 666, 960 N.E.2d 435;People v. Louree, 8 N.Y.3d 541, 545–546, 838 N.Y.S.2d 18, 869 N.E.2d 18). W...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Williams
...for appellate review her challenge thereto, since restitution was expressly made a part of the plea agreement ( see People v. Jerome, 110 A.D.3d 739, 740, 972 N.Y.S.2d 102). The defendant was also required to timely object to the court's imposition of an enhanced term of imprisonment to the......
-
People v. Bautista
...calls into question the voluntariness of the plea (People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d at 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ; People v. Jerome, 110 A.D.3d 739, 740, 972 N.Y.S.2d 102 ; People v. Rojas, 74 A.D.3d 1369, 1369, 903 N.Y.S.2d 258 ). In any event, the defendant's contention is belied by h......
-
People v. Miller
...is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Woods, 110 A.D.3d 748, 972 N.Y.S.2d 97 ; People v. Jerome, 110 A.D.3d 739, 740, 972 N.Y.S.2d 102 ; People v. Thompson, 105 A.D.3d 1067, 963 N.Y.S.2d 406 ). The defendant does not contend that his plea of guilty was rendered ......
-
People v. Nilsen
...restitution is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Woods, 110 A.D.3d 748, 972 N.Y.S.2d 97 ; People v. Jerome, 110 A.D.3d 739, 740, 972 N.Y.S.2d 102 ; People v. Thompson, 105 A.D.3d 1067, 963 N.Y.S.2d 406 ). However, we reach the issue as a matter of discretion in......