People v. Navedo
| Decision Date | 16 February 1988 |
| Citation | 137 A.D.2d 726,524 N.Y.S.2d 810 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Richard NAVEDO, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Grant W. Kelleher, Otisville, for appellant.
Richard Navedo, pro se.
Carl A. Vergari, Dist. Atty., White Plains (Matthew A. Weispaupt and Maryanne Luciano, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BROWN, J.P., and RUBIN, EIBER and SULLIVAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Dachenhausen, J.), rendered September 24, 1985, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered a plea of guilty prior to a court-ordered Huntley hearing on that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress statements he made to the police. Furthermore, the defendant expressly consented to the withdrawal of any undecided motions during the plea allocution. Consequently, the defendant has forfeited the right to appellate review of his contention that the statements he made to the police should have been suppressed as violative of his right to counsel ( see, People v. Fernandez, 67 N.Y.2d 686, 499 N.Y.S.2d 919, 490 N.E.2d 838; People v. Thomas, 74 A.D.2d 317, 428 N.Y.S.2d 20, affd. 53 N.Y.2d 338, 441 N.Y.S.2d 650, 424 N.E.2d 537).
The defendant's claim that he was not afforded the effective assistance of trial counsel is based largely on matters which are dehors the record, and, thus, that claim is not reviewable on direct appeal (see, People v. Robinson, 122 A.D.2d 173, 504 N.Y.S.2d 710, lv. denied 68 N.Y.2d 1003, 510 N.Y.S.2d 1036, 503 N.E.2d 133; People v. Wolcott, 111 A.D.2d 943, 490 N.Y.S.2d 40). The appropriate remedy is a post-conviction motion pursuant to CPL 440.10, provided the statutory requirements are met (CPL 440.30; see, People v. Brown, 45 N.Y.2d 852, 410 N.Y.S.2d 287, 382 N.E.2d 1149; People v. Wolcott, supra ). Insofar as we are able to review his ineffective assistance claim, we find that defense counsel's performance amply met the standard of meaningful representation. A tactical decision by defense counsel to forego pretrial motions to suppress statements made by the defendant at the time of arrest when an advantageous plea bargain has been struck, as here, may not be attacked on appeal and labeled ineffective assistance of counsel ( see, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Flakes
...490 N.E.2d 838; People v. Ramos, 232 A.D.2d 433, 648 N.Y.S.2d 449; People v. Britton, 208 A.D.2d 761, 619 N.Y.S.2d 280; People v. Navedo, 137 A.D.2d 726, 524 N.Y.S.2d 810). Similarly, by pleading guilty, he has forfeited his right to appellate review of his claims that the People failed to ......
-
People v. Candelaria
...counsel is based largely on matters which are dehors the record and, thus, are not reviewable on direct appeal ( see, People v. Navedo, 137 A.D.2d 726, 524 N.Y.S.2d 810; People v. Robinson, 122 A.D.2d 173, 504 N.Y.S.2d 710, lv. denied 68 N.Y.2d 1003, 510 N.Y.S.2d 1036, 503 N.E.2d 133; Peopl......
-
People v. Reyes
...Brown, 45 N.Y.2d 852, 410 N.Y.S.2d 287, 382 N.E.2d 1149; People v. Candelaria, 139 A.D.2d 752, 753, 527 N.Y.S.2d 978; People v. Navedo, 137 A.D.2d 726, 524 N.Y.S.2d 810, lv. denied 71 N.Y.2d 1030, 530 N.Y.S.2d 566, 526 N.E.2d 58; People v. Ricks, 135 A.D.2d 844, 845, 522 N.Y.S.2d 945). The ......
-
People v. McClure
...imprisonment, he has received adequate representation (see, e.g., People v. Mobley, 221 A.D.2d 376, 633 N.Y.S.2d 203; People v. Navedo, 137 A.D.2d 726, 524 N.Y.S.2d 810). Here, had a jury convicted the defendant of rape in the first degree, he could have received a sentence of 8 1/3 to 25 y......