People v. Jones

Decision Date12 May 2005
Docket Number14754.
CitationPeople v. Jones, 18 AD3d 964, 795 N.Y.S.2d 765, 2005 NY Slip Op 3903 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
PartiesTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. HILLARY JONES, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Teresi, J.), rendered March 7, 2003 in Albany County, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Spain, J.P.

Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, and in full satisfaction of all charges pending against him, defendant pleaded guilty to attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. He was subsequently sentenced, as agreed, to a prison term of 3½ to 7 years. Defendant now appeals, claiming that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive.

We affirm. Although defendant expressly waived his right to appeal, his challenge to the effectiveness of counsel implicates the voluntariness of his guilty plea and, thus, survives such waiver. Defendant, however, did not preserve that issue, having failed to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Allen, 15 AD3d 689, 690 [2005]; People v Washington, 3 AD3d 741, 742 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 747 [2004]). In any event, his claim is without merit. "In the context of a guilty plea, a defendant has been afforded meaningful representation when he or she receives an advantageous plea and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel" (People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995] [citations omitted]; see People v Allen, supra at 690; People v Scott, 12 AD3d 716, 717 [2004]). Here, counsel negotiated a favorable plea agreement exposing defendant to far less prison time than if he were convicted of the pending charges after trial and there is no indication in the record that counsel was otherwise ineffective (see People v Allen, supra at 690; People v Washington, supra at 742). Finally, due to defendant's knowing, intelligent and voluntary plea and waiver of the right to appeal, we will not review his contention that his sentence was harsh and excessive (see People v Allen, supra at 690; People v Travis, 12 AD3d 784 [2004]).

Carpinello, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Get Started for Free

Start Your 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 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 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 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 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 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
3 cases
  • People v. Santana
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • June 19, 2012
    ...consequences of a guilty plea, and nothing in the record suggests that Defendant's counsel was not effective. People v. Jones, 18 A.D.3d 964, 965, 795 N.Y.S.2d 765 (3rd Dept.2005); People v. Boodhoo, 191 A.D.2d 448, 448, 593 N.Y.S.2d 882 (2nd Dept.1993); People v. Saint Hilaire, 5 Misc.3d 1......
  • People v. Gianni
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • April 20, 2012
  • People v. Ebert
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • May 12, 2005