People v. Shaw
| Decision Date | 20 November 2015 |
| Citation | 19 N.Y.S.3d 449 (Mem),2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 08542,133 A.D.3d 1312 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Richard J. SHAW, Defendant–Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
133 A.D.3d 1312
19 N.Y.S.3d 449 (Mem)
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 08542
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Richard J. SHAW, Defendant–Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Nov. 20, 2015.
D.J. & J.A. Cirando, Esqs., Syracuse (John A. Cirandoof Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.
Gregory S. Oakes, District Attorney, Oswego (Amy L. Hallenbeckof Counsel), for Respondent.
OpinionMEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of rape in the third degree (Penal Law § 130.25[2]). Initially, we agree with defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal was invalid because “ ‘the minimal inquiry made by County Court was insufficient to establish that the court engage[d] defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice’ ” (People v. Carrasquillo,130 A.D.3d 1498, 1498, 11 N.Y.S.3d 499; see People v. Harris,121 A.D.3d 1423, 1424, 995 N.Y.S.2d 410, lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 989, 10 N.Y.S.3d 532, 32 N.E.3d 969). Although defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his plea would have survived even a valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Adams, 57 A.D.3d 1385, 1385, 871 N.Y.S.2d 567, lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 780, 879 N.Y.S.2d 57, 906 N.E.2d 1091), “defendant did not move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction and thus failed to preserve his [challenge] for our review” (People v. Dozier,59 A.D.3d 987, 987, 872 N.Y.S.2d 317, lv. denied12 N.Y.3d 815, 881 N.Y.S.2d 23, 908 N.E.2d 931). Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the amount of restitution ordered by the court inasmuch as he did not object to the amount of restitution (see People v. Spossey,107 A.D.3d 1420, 1420, 966 N.Y.S.2d 640, lv. denied22 N.Y.3d 1159, 984 N.Y.S.2d 643), or to the fact that the court relied exclusively on the presentence report in determining the amount of
restitution (see People v. Cooke,21 A.D.3d 1339, 1339, 804 N.Y.S.2d 516).
We reject defendant's contention that he was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Johnson
...814 N.Y.S.2d 82, 847 N.E.2d 379). In any event, although we agree with defendant that the People's use of defendant's selective silence 133 A.D.3d 1312during the interrogation that occurred the day after the murder was improper (see People v. Williams,25 N.Y.3d 185, 193, 8 N.Y.S.3d 641, 31 ......
-
People v. Seymore
...an advantageous plea, and ‘nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel’ " ( People v. Shaw , 133 A.D.3d 1312, 1313, 19 N.Y.S.3d 449 [4th Dept. 2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 1150, 32 N.Y.S.3d 64, 51 N.E.3d 575 [2016], quoting People v. Ford , 86 N.Y.2d 397, 404, 6......
-
People v. Jackson
...an advantageous plea, and ‘nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel’ " ( People v. Shaw , 133 A.D.3d 1312, 1313, 19 N.Y.S.3d 449 [4th Dept. 2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 1150, 32 N.Y.S.3d 64, 51 N.E.3d 575 [2016], quoting People v. Ford , 86 N.Y.2d 397, 404, 6......
-
People v. Hampton
...“received an advantageous plea, and ‘nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel’ ” (People v. Shaw, 133 A.D.3d 1312, 1313, 19 N.Y.S.3d 449, lv. denied 26 N.Y.3d 1150, 32 N.Y.S.3d 64, 51 N.E.3d 575, quoting People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397, 404, 633 N.Y.S.2d 270,......