People v. Rojas
| Decision Date | 29 June 2010 |
| Citation | 74 A.D.3d 1369,903 N.Y.S.2d 258 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Miguel ROJAS, also known as Miguel A. Rojas, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Steven A. Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y., for appellant.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.), rendered June 6, 2008, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea allocution is unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea prior to sentencing ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Toxey, 86 N.Y.2d 725, 631 N.Y.S.2d 119, 655 N.E.2d 160; People v. Johnson, 73 A.D.3d 951, 899 N.Y.S.2d 875; People v. Marcinak, 69 A.D.3d 654, 893 N.Y.S.2d 171, lv. denied 14 N.Y.3d 842, 901 N.Y.S.2d 148, 927 N.E.2d 569; People v. Colston, 68 A.D.3d 1130, 892 N.Y.S.2d 145). Moreover, the plea proceedings do not "clearly cast[ ] significant doubt upon the defendant's guilt or otherwise call[ ] into question the voluntariness of the plea" and, thus, this case is not a "rare case" presenting an exception to the preservation requirement ( People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5).
The defendant's challenge to the restitution component of his sentence is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Bruno, 73 A.D.3d 941, 900 N.Y.S.2d 447; People v. Harris, 72 A.D.3d 1110, 900 N.Y.S.2d 137), and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15).
The defendant's sentence was part of a negotiated plea agreement. Accordingly, he has no basis to complain that the sentence was excessive ( see People v. Vere, 44 A.D.3d 690, 692, 843 N.Y.S.2d 378; People v. Fiori, 24 A.D.3d 687, 808 N.Y.S.2d 382; People v. Mejia, 6 A.D.3d 630, 774 N.Y.S.2d 801). In any event, the sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 83, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Parker
...see [99 A.D.3d 734]People v. Francis, 82 A.D.3d 1263, 919 N.Y.S.2d 394;People v. Nelson, 77 A.D.3d 973, 909 N.Y.S.2d 642;People v. Rojas, 74 A.D.3d 1369, 903 N.Y.S.2d 258;People v. Harris, 72 A.D.3d 1110, 1112, 900 N.Y.S.2d 137). In any event, this contention is without merit, as “the [Coun......
-
People v. Rodriguez-Ovalles
...903 N.Y.S.2d 25874 A.D.3d 1368The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,v.Daniel RODRIGUEZ-OVALLES, also known as Daniel Rodriguez, also known as Daniel Ovalles, appellant.Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.June 29, 2010.903 N.Y.S.2d 259Francis D. Phillips II, District Attorn......
-
People v. Bautista
...v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d at 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ; People v. Jerome, 110 A.D.3d 739, 740, 972 N.Y.S.2d 102 ; People v. Rojas, 74 A.D.3d 1369, 1369, 903 N.Y.S.2d 258 ). In any event, the defendant's contention is belied by his statements during the plea proceeding, in which he ackn......
-
People v. Hopkins
...v. Horne, 97 N.Y.2d 404, 414 n 3, 740 N.Y.S.2d 675, 767 N.E.2d 132 ; People v. Nelson, 77 A.D.3d 973, 909 N.Y.S.2d 642 ; People v. Rojas, 74 A.D.3d 1369, 903 N.Y.S.2d 258 ), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15 ). CHAMBERS, J.P.......