People v. Kerwin
| Decision Date | 01 May 2014 |
| Citation | 117 A.D.3d 1097,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 02976,985 N.Y.S.2d 186 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Daniel P. KERWIN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
David Perino, Albany, for appellant.
D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), for respondent.
Before: PETERS, P.J., LAHTINEN, McCARTHY and GARRY, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.), rendered February 2, 2012, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of robbery in the second degree.
Defendant was charged in an indictment with robbery in the first degree stemming from an incident in which he attempted to steal a flat screen television to acquire money to purchase drugs. He thereafter pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of robbery in the second degree in exchange for a negotiated sentence of 10 years in prison followed by five years of postrelease supervision. County Court sentenced defendant, as a second violent felony offender, to the agreed-upon sentence and defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Defendant's contention that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel is unpreserved for our review based upon his admitted failure to make an appropriate postallocation motion ( see People v. Wiley, 112 A.D.3d 998, 998, 975 N.Y.S.2d 922 [2013];People v. Gruber, 108 A.D.3d 877, 878, 969 N.Y.S.2d 586 [2013],lv. denied22 N.Y.3d 956, 977 N.Y.S.2d 187, 999 N.E.2d 552 [2013] ). Furthermore, we reject defendant's claim that his sentence was harsh and excessive. In light of his lengthy criminal history and the fact that he agreed to the sentence imposed, we find no extraordinary circumstances or abuse of discretion that would warrant a reduction in his sentence ( see People v. Flanders, 110 A.D.3d 1112, 1113, 972 N.Y.S.2d 355 [2013];People v. Williams, 101 A.D.3d 1174, 1174–1175, 959 N.Y.S.2d 551 [2012] ).
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pomeroy v. Gelber
...8, 2011 at approximately 10 A.M.” 1 Additionally, despite Bush's and Tompkins' respective testimony that the steps were essentially [985 N.Y.S.2d 186]clear at the time that Pomeroy fell, each nonetheless acknowledged that there was some form of precipitation present—with Tompkins testifying......
-
People v. Perry
...sentence in the interest of justice (see People v. Rabideau, 130 A.D.3d 1094, 1095, 12 N.Y.S.3d 386 [2015] ; People v. Kerwin, 117 A.D.3d 1097, 1098, 985 N.Y.S.2d 186 [2014] ). Defendant also challenges the denial of his motion to vacate the judgment without a hearing, which was premised up......
-
People v. Burdo
...Suddard, 164 A.D.3d at 951, 77 N.Y.S.3d 910 ; People v. French, 134 A.D.3d 1245, 1245–1246, 19 N.Y.S.3d 912 [2015] ; People v. Kerwin, 117 A.D.3d 1097, 1098, 985 N.Y.S.2d 186 [2014] ).ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. Garry, P.J., Lynch, Devine, Aarons and Colangelo, JJ.,...
-
People v. Decker
...have also not been preserved for our review (see People v. Terry, 122 A.D.3d 955, 956, 994 N.Y.S.2d 723 [2014] ; People v. Kerwin, 117 A.D.3d 1097, 1098, 985 N.Y.S.2d 186 [2014] ). In any event, we note that "[t]here can be no denial of effective assistance of trial counsel arising from cou......