People v. Miller

CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
Writing for the CourtLAHTINEN
Citation918 N.Y.S.2d 224,82 A.D.3d 1278
PartiesThe PEOPLE of The State of New York, Respondent, v. William James MILLER Jr., Appellant.
Decision Date03 March 2011
918 N.Y.S.2d 224
82 A.D.3d 1278

The PEOPLE of The State of New York, Respondent,
William James MILLER Jr., Appellant.

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

March 3, 2011.

918 N.Y.S.2d 225

Alexander W. Bloomstein, Hillsdale, for appellant.

Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), for respondent.



Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Bruhn, J.), rendered September 12, 2008, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of murder in the second degree and grand larceny in the third degree.

For several months during 2007, defendant stole money from the victim, his elderly and infirm father. Upon being confronted by the victim in September 2007 about the pilfered funds, defendant strangled him and then left his body in the victim's home. Police discovered the victim's decomposing body in October 2007 and defendant eventually executed a detailed written confession. He was indicted on charges of murder in the second degree and grand larceny in the third degree. After his suppression motion was denied, defendant agreed to plead guilty to both counts in exchange for a sentence of 20 years to life on the murder count and a concurrent term for the grand larceny count. Consistent with the agreement, he was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 20 years to life for murder and 3 1/2 to 7 years for grand larceny. County Court also directed defendant to pay restitution of $14,250.25 to the victim's estate, and issued orders of protection for the victim's family members who had requested such orders. Defendant appeals.

We affirm. Defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his plea was not preserved since he did not move to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction ( see People v. Glynn, 73 A.D.3d 1290, 1291, 900 N.Y.S.2d 513 [2010]; People v. Lopez, 52 A.D.3d 852, 852-853, 859 N.Y.S.2d 267 [2008] ). Contrary to his contention, the exception to this preservation requirement was not established since review of the plea colloquy

fails to establish that his recitation of the facts negated an essential element of the crime ( see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 [1988]; People v. Kilgore, 45 A.D.3d 886, 887, 844 N.Y.S.2d 487 [2007], lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 767, 854 N.Y.S.2d 329, 883 N.E.2d 1264 [2008] ). His further argument that he...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Woods v. Heath, 12-CV-02175 (NGG)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • November 18, 2013
    ...the Appellate Division also rejected Woods's legal sufficiency claim on the merits is of no import. See Harris, 489 U.S. at 264; Woods, 82 A.D.3d at 1278. Since the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division expressly relied on a procedural default as an independent and adequate state......
  • People v. Bates
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • April 7, 2011 unpreserved for our review as he neither moved to withdraw his plea nor to vacate the judgment of conviction ( see People v. Miller, 82 A.D.3d 1278, 918 N.Y.S.2d 224, 225 [2011]; People v. Pendelton, 81 A.D.3d 1037, 1038, 916 N.Y.S.2d 297 [2011] ). In any event, defendant's Alford plea r......
  • People v. McCoy
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • November 10, 2011
    ...of his [933 N.Y.S.2d 428] or her constitutional rights, and has made a knowing and intelligent waiver of them ( see People v. Miller, 82 A.D.3d 1278, 1279, 918 N.Y.S.2d 224 [2011], lv. denied 16 N.Y.3d 861, 923 N.Y.S.2d 423, 947 N.E.2d 1202 [2011]; People v. Culver, 69 A.D.3d 976, 976–977, ......
  • People v. Woods
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • March 29, 2011
    ...the circumstances of this case, as part of our review of the weight of the evidence, we decline to “assume the basis for any implied [82 A.D.3d 1278]inconsistencies in mixed jury verdicts” ( People v. Rayam, 94 N.Y.2d 557, 563, 708 N.Y.S.2d 37, 729 N.E.2d 694;see People v. Houston, 73 A.D.3......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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