People v. Ortiz
Decision Date | 30 April 2014 |
Citation | 983 N.Y.S.2d 905,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 02958,116 A.D.3d 1070 |
Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Anthony M. ORTIZ, appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Salvatore C. Adamo, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Adam B. Levy, District Attorney, Carmel, N.Y. (Heather M. Abissi of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Putnam County (Rooney, J.), entered June 12, 2013, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw the plea ( see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5;People v. Pryor, 11 A.D.3d 565, 782 N.Y.S.2d 803). In any event, the plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made ( see People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 543, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646;People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d at 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5;People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 17, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170). The defendant's postplea assertion regarding the defense of insanity did not warrant vacatur of his plea of guilty ( see People v. Bunn, 79 A.D.3d 1143, 914 N.Y.S.2d 907).
The defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel, as defense counsel provided meaningful representation ( see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584;People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).
The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive ( see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 255, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145;People v. Sanders, 112 A.D.3d 748, 976 N.Y.S.2d 205).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Bennett
...815 ), but the defendant failed to preserve this claim (see People v. Sabo, 117 A.D.3d 1089, 986 N.Y.S.2d 232 ; People v. Ortiz, 116 A.D.3d 1070, 1070, 983 N.Y.S.2d 905 ; People v. King, 115 A.D.3d 986, 986, 982 N.Y.S.2d 178 ). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the exception to the pr......
-
People v. Bennett
...815), but the defendant failed to preserve this claim ( see People v. Sabo, 117 A.D.3d 1089, 986 N.Y.S.2d 232; People v. Ortiz, 116 A.D.3d 1070, 1070, 983 N.Y.S.2d 905; People v. King, 115 A.D.3d 986, 986, 982 N.Y.S.2d 178). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the exception to the prese......
- People v. Richardson
-
People v. Fontanet
...(see People v. Bennett, 122 A.D.3d at 871, 996 N.Y.S.2d 369 ; People v. Sabo, 117 A.D.3d 1089, 986 N.Y.S.2d 232 ; People v. Ortiz, 116 A.D.3d 1070, 1070, 983 N.Y.S.2d 905 ). Moreover, contrary to the defendant's contention, the exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here, ......