People v. Simcoe
| Decision Date | 11 June 2010 |
| Citation | 74 A.D.3d 1858,902 N.Y.S.2d 489 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Harold SIMCOE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Appeal from a judgmentof the Onondaga County Court (Joseph E. Fahey, J.), rendered May 7, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of driving while intoxicated, as a class D felony.
Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Shirley K. Duffy of Counsel), for defendant-appellant.
William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (James P. Maxwell of Counsel), for respondent.
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of felony driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[3]; § 1193[1][c] [former (ii) ] ). We reject the contention of defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal is void as against public policy ( see People v. Muniz, 91 N.Y.2d 570, 573-575, 673 N.Y.S.2d 358, 696 N.E.2d 182). Contrary to the further contention of defendant, the record establishes that his waiver of the right to appeal was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered ( see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145; People v. Grimes, 53 A.D.3d 1055, 860 N.Y.S.2d 723, lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 789, 866 N.Y.S.2d 615, 896 N.E.2d 101).
The contention of defendant that his plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary "because he did not recite the underlyingfacts of the crime but simply replied to County Court's questions with monosyllabic responses is actually a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution," which is encompassed by the valid waiver of the right to appeal ( People v. Bailey, 49 A.D.3d 1258, 1259, 852 N.Y.S.2d 892, lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 932, 862 N.Y.S.2d 338, 892 N.E.2d 404; see People v. Brown, 66 A.D.3d 1385, 885 N.Y.S.2d 660; People v. Peters, 59 A.D.3d 928, 873 N.Y.S.2d 397, lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 820, 881 N.Y.S.2d 27, 908 N.E.2d 935). In any event, that challenge lacks merit inasmuch as "there is no requirement that defendant recite the underlying facts of the crime to which he is pleading guilty" ( Bailey, 49 A.D.3d at 1259, 852 N.Y.S.2d 892; see People v. VanDeViver, 56 A.D.3d 1118, 867 N.Y.S.2d 586, lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 931, 874 N.Y.S.2d 16, 902 N.E.2d 450 12 N.Y.3d 788, 879 N.Y.S.2d 65, 906 N.E.2d 1099).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Mccarthy
...the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution,’ which is encompassed by the valid waiver of the right to appeal” ( People v. Simcoe, 74 A.D.3d 1858, 1859, 902 N.Y.S.2d 489, lv. denied 15 N.Y.3d 778, 907 N.Y.S.2d 467, 933 N.E.2d 1060, quoting People v. Bailey, 49 A.D.3d 1258, 1259, 852 N.Y.......
-
People v. Kosmetatos
...1807, 58 N.Y.S.3d 766 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 978, 67 N.Y.S.3d 580, 89 N.E.3d 1260 [2017] ; People v. Simcoe , 74 A.D.3d 1858, 1859, 902 N.Y.S.2d 489 [4th Dept. 2010], lv denied 15 N.Y.3d 778, 907 N.Y.S.2d 467, 933 N.E.2d 1060 [2010] ). Defendant's further contention that each......
-
People v. Korber
...the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution,’ which is encompassed by the valid waiver of the right to appeal” ( People v. Simcoe, 74 A.D.3d 1858, 1859, 902 N.Y.S.2d 489, lv. denied 15 N.Y.3d 778, 907 N.Y.S.2d 467, 933 N.E.2d 1060; see People v. Brown, 66 A.D.3d 1385, 885 N.Y.S.2d 660, l......
-
People v. Williams
...v. Whipple, 37 A.D.3d 1148, 1148, 829 N.Y.S.2d 368,lv. denied8 N.Y.3d 928, 834 N.Y.S.2d 518, 866 N.E.2d 464;see People v. Simcoe, 74 A.D.3d 1858, 1859, 902 N.Y.S.2d 489,lv. denied15 N.Y.3d 778, 907 N.Y.S.2d 467, 933 N.E.2d 1060). Defendant also contends in his pro se supplemental brief that......