People v. Rich
Decision Date | 16 June 2016 |
Citation | 34 N.Y.S.3d 250,140 A.D.3d 1407,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 04747 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Omar RICH, Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Salvatore Adamo, Albany, for appellant.
Kathleen B. Hogan, District Attorney, Lake George (Emilee B. Davenport of counsel), for respondent.
Before: PETERS, P.J., LAHTINEN, GARRY, CLARK and MULVEY, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Warren County (Hall Jr., J.), rendered July 30, 2014, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree.
Defendant pleaded guilty as charged to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree. County Court thereafter sentenced him to eight years in prison, to be followed by 1 ½ years of postrelease supervision, with the sentence to run concurrently to a sentence he was currently serving. Defendant appeals, and we affirm.
Initially, defendant's contention that his plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel were not preserved for our review by an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v. Trombley, 115 A.D.3d 1114, 1114, 982 N.Y.S.2d 791 [2014], lv. denied 23 N.Y.3d 1068, 994 N.Y.S.2d 327, 18 N.E.3d 1148 [2014] ). As to the plea, we note that the narrow exception to the preservation requirement was triggered by defendant's initial denial during the plea colloquy that he had the intent to sell the narcotics, thus negating an element of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (see Penal Law § 220.16[1] ), and triggering a duty on the part of County Court to conduct further inquiry (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 [2013] ; People v. Peterson, 124 A.D.3d 993, 994, 1 N.Y.S.3d 517 [2015] ; People v. Morehouse, 109 A.D.3d 1022, 1022, 972 N.Y.S.2d 729 [2013] ). However, the record reveals that the court did then conduct sufficient further inquiry of defendant to confirm that he understood the nature of the charge and ensure the validity of the plea, and defendant thereafter admitted to having the requisite intent to sell. “[A]s defendant failed to express any dissatisfaction with the court's remedial action in this regard, defendant has waived any further challenge to his allocution” (People v. English, 100 A.D.3d 1147, 1148, 953 N.Y.S.2d 722 [2012] ; see People v. Karolys, 85 A.D.3d 1213, 923 N.Y.S.2d 921 [2011], lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 818, 929 N.Y.S.2d 807, 954 N.E.2d 98 [2011] ). Accordingly, we find that the plea was knowing, voluntary and intelligent (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d at 667–668, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ; People v. Howard, 119 A.D.3d 1090, 1090, 988 N.Y.S.2d 726 [2014], lv. denied 24 N.Y.3d 961, 996 N.Y.S.2d 221, 20 N.E.3d 1001 [2014] ).
Finally, as to defendant's claim that the sentence is harsh and excessive, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Miller
...at 382, 23 N.Y.S.3d 124, 44 N.E.3d 199 ; see People v. Smith, 155 A.D.3d 1244, 1245, 65 N.Y.S.3d 580 [2017] ; People v. Rich, 140 A.D.3d 1407, 1407, 34 N.Y.S.3d 250 [2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 936, 40 N.Y.S.3d 364, 63 N.E.3d 84 [2016] ). Defendant's claim that he was improperly allowed to p......
-
People v. Fay
...plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary is unpreserved by his failure to make a postallocution motion (see People v. Rich, 140 A.D.3d 1407, 1407, 34 N.Y.S.3d 250 [2016], lv. denied 28 N.Y.3d 936, 40 N.Y.S.3d 364, 63 N.E.3d 84 [2016] ; People v. Hull, 52 A.D.3d 962, 963, 859 N.Y.S.2d......
-
People v. Blair
...of Supreme Court to conduct a further inquiry (see People v. Chin, 160 A.D.3d 1038, 1039, 73 N.Y.S.3d 685 [2018] ; People v. Rich, 140 A.D.3d 1407, 1407, 34 N.Y.S.3d 250 [2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 936, 40 N.Y.S.3d 364, 63 N.E.3d 84 [2016] ). After defendant's statements, Supreme Court adjo......
-
People v. Tetreault
...to the plea are unpreserved for our review, as he did not raise them in an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v. Rich, 140 A.D.3d 1407, 1407, 34 N.Y.S.3d 250 [2016], lv. denied 28 N.Y.3d 936, 40 N.Y.S.3d 364, 63 N.E.3d 84 [2016] ; People v. Lewis, 118 A.D.3d 1125, 1125, 987 N.Y.S......