People v. Newson
| Decision Date | 08 May 2013 |
| Citation | 106 A.D.3d 839,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 03347,964 N.Y.S.2d 646 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Nathaniel NEWSON, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
106 A.D.3d 839
964 N.Y.S.2d 646
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 03347
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Nathaniel NEWSON, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
May 8, 2013.
Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Heidi Bota of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Laura T. Ross of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, and SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.
[106 A.D.3d 840]Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Chin Brandt, J.), rendered April 26, 2011, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Although the New York Constitution recognizes a defendant's right to prosecution by indictment ( seeN.Y. Const., art. I, § 6), both the New York Constitution and CPL article 195 provide that, under certain circumstances, a defendant may validly waive that right ( seeN.Y. Const., art. I, § 6; CPL 195.10, 195.20). Contrary to the defendant's contention, he validly waived his right to prosecution by indictment in accordance with the provisions of the New York Constitution and CPL article 195.
The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered is unpreserved for appellate review because he did not move to withdraw his plea of guilty prior to the imposition of sentence ( see People v. Clarke, 93 N.Y.2d 904, 906, 690 N.Y.S.2d 501, 712 N.E.2d 668;People v. Cohen, 100 A.D.3d 919, 953 N.Y.S.2d 900,lv. denied20 N.Y.3d 1060, 962 N.Y.S.2d 611, 985 N.E.2d 921). Moreover, this case does not qualify for the narrow, rare exception to the requirement that a claim of an invalid plea of guilty must be appropriately preserved ( see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5). Under the circumstances of this case, we decline to review the defendant's claim in the interest of justice ( see People v. Kitt, 102 A.D.3d 984, 958 N.Y.S.2d 481).
There is no merit to the defendant's contention that the sentencing court failed to conduct an adequate inquiry into the validity of the defendant's re-arrest and, thus, erred in imposing an enhanced sentence based upon his violation of a no re-arrest condition of his plea ( see People v. Guillen, 37 A.D.3d 493, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Shand
...v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5;People v. Oseni, 107 A.D.3d 829, 966 N.Y.S.2d 677;People v. Newson, 106 A.D.3d 839, 840, 964 N.Y.S.2d 646;People v. Cohen, 100 A.D.3d 919, 953 N.Y.S.2d 900). Moreover, the rare exception to the preservation requirement is inapplic......
-
People v. Aquart
...553 ; People v. Bastardo, 127 A.D.3d 776, 776, 4 N.Y.S.3d 549 ; People v. Hanely, 107 A.D.3d 917, 966 N.Y.S.2d 870 ; People v. Newson, 106 A.D.3d 839, 964 N.Y.S.2d 646 ; People v. Gramola, 102 A.D.3d 810, 957 N.Y.S.2d 893 ).MASTRO, J.P., CHAMBERS, MILLER and BARROS, JJ., ...
-
People v. Giddens
...People v. Bridgers, 159 A.D.3d 715, 715, 69 N.Y.S.3d 497 ; People v. Woods, 138 A.D.3d 1153, 1154, 28 N.Y.S.3d 905 ; People v. Newson, 106 A.D.3d 839, 840, 964 N.Y.S.2d 646 ). In any event, the plea was voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently entered (see People v. Pellegrino, 26 N.Y.3d 1......
-
Zito v. Cnty. of Suffolk
...L.P., 58 A.D.3d at 1013, 871 N.Y.S.2d 468). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the County's motion for summary judgment [964 N.Y.S.2d 646]dismissing the complaint, based on the statute of frauds. In light of the foregoing, we need not address the parties' remaining...