People v. Mingo
| Citation | 925 N.Y.S.2d 865,85 A.D.3d 1061,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 05528 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,v.Gregory MINGO, appellant. |
| Decision Date | 21 June 2011 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERESteven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Harold V. Ferguson, Jr., of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Anastasia Spanakos of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lewis, J.), imposed September 26, 2008, upon his convictions of burglary in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict.
ORDERED that the resentence is affirmed.
The defendant waived his claim that his adjudication as a second felony offender was improper on the ground that his prior conviction was unconstitutionally obtained because the sentence to which he agreed was illegal, as he did not raise that issue at the resentencing proceeding (see CPL 400.21[7][b]; cf. People v. Ashley, 71 A.D.3d 1286, 1287, 896 N.Y.S.2d 520, affd. 16 N.Y.3d 725, 917 N.Y.S.2d 91, 942 N.E.2d 300). The defendant's claim that the prior conviction was unconstitutionally obtained because the plea of guilty to that crime was coerced is without merit. Even if the defendant's testimony at the predicate felony offender hearing was credited, it would not establish that the defendant's plea of guilty was not valid (see People v. Sanchez–Martinez, 35 A.D.3d 632, 633, 829 N.Y.S.2d 121; People v. Outer, 197 A.D.2d 543, 544, 602 N.Y.S.2d 215).
The defendant's claim that the Supreme Court had the discretion to resentence him on the counts that were not defective is without merit (see CPL 440.20). The defendant's claim that the court did not have jurisdiction to resentence him at all is likewise without merit ( cf. People v. Lingle, 16 N.Y.3d 621). The defendant's remaining contention raised in his pro se supplemental brief is not properly before this Court.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Boula
...N.E.2d 300 [2011];see People ex rel. Emanuel v. McMann, 7 N.Y.2d 342, 344–345, 197 N.Y.S.2d 174, 165 N.E.2d 187 [1960];People v. Mingo, 85 A.D.3d 1061, 1061, 925 N.Y.S.2d 865 [2011],lv. denied17 N.Y.3d 954, 936 N.Y.S.2d 80, 959 N.E.2d 1029 [2011] ). [106 A.D.3d 1374]Our review of defendant'......
-
People v. Powell
...85 A.D.3d 1061925 N.Y.S.2d 8752011 N.Y. Slip Op. 05529The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,v.Fred POWELL, appellant.Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.June 21, Martin E. Gotkin, Palisades, N.Y., for appellant. [925 N.Y.S.2d 876] Thomas P. Zugibe, District Attorney, New C......
-
People v. Mendez
...a charge for that count ( see People v. Smitherman, 297 A.D.2d 352, 746 N.Y.S.2d 403). In any event, this contention is without merit. [85 A.D.3d 1061] The contention raised in the defendant's pro se supplemental brief that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel is without m......