People v. Parkinson

Decision Date24 November 2021
Docket Number2021-06576
PartiesThe People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jahnell Parkinson, Also Known as Main, Appellant.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New York)

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Jahnell Parkinson, Also Known as Main, Appellant.

No. 2021-06576

Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

November 24, 2021


Calendar Date: October 13, 2021

Law Offices of Danielle Neroni, Albany (Angela Kelley of counsel), for appellant.

Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Peter H. Willis of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Clark, Pritzker and Colangelo, JJ.

Egan Jr., J.P.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Hogan, J.), rendered February 13, 2020 in Schenectady County, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Following two sales of cocaine to a confidential informant, defendant was charged in a nine-count indictment with various offenses related to his sale and possession of drugs and his tampering with physical evidence. Defendant pleaded not guilty to the charges and, after the conclusion of pretrial motion practice and hearings, the matter proceeded to trial. In the midst of that trial, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree in satisfaction of the indictment and waived his right to appeal. Under the terms of the plea agreement, Supreme Court committed to sentencing defendant to no more than two years in prison to be followed by two years of postrelease supervision. At sentencing, Supreme Court clarified the scope of defendant's appeal waiver, and he confirmed that he had discussed the issue with counsel, understood his right to appeal and was voluntarily waiving it. Supreme Court thereafter sentenced him to two years in prison to be followed by two years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals, and we affirm. [1]

Defendant's argument that his guilty plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary survives his unchallenged appeal waiver, but is unpreserved given that the record is devoid of any indication that he made an appropriate postallocution motion despite having had ample time in which do so (see People v McCoy, 198 A.D.3d 1021, ___, 152 N.Y.S.3d 635, 636 [2021]; People v White, 172 A.D.3d 1822, 1823-1824 [2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 1110 [2019]). The narrow exception to the preservation requirement does not apply, as defendant said nothing during the plea colloquy that was inconsistent with his guilt, negated an essential element of the charged crime or otherwise called the voluntariness...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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