People v. Singh

• Decision Date: 28 February 2018
• Docket Number: Ind. No. 15–01140,2016–12897
• Citation: 68 N.Y.S.3d 888 (Mem)
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Tejmitra SINGH, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

158 A.D.3d 824

68 N.Y.S.3d 888 (Mem)

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Tejmitra SINGH, appellant.

2016–12897

Ind. No. 15–01140

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Submitted—February 7, 2018

February 28, 2018

Steven A. Feldman, Uniondale, NY, for appellant.

Anthony A. Scarpino, Jr., District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Jennifer Spencer and William C. Milaccio of counsel), for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., SANDRA L. SGROI, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barry E. Warhit, J.), rendered October 26, 2016, convicting him of assault in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, or intelligently entered is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Linares, 116 A.D.3d 792, 982 N.Y.S.2d 901 ; People v. Jackson, 114 A.D.3d 807, 979 N.Y.S.2d 704 ; People v. Adio, 111 A.D.3d 757, 758, 974 N.Y.S.2d 557 ). In any event, this contention is without merit. Contrary to the defendant's contention, a court may attach reasonable conditions to its acceptance of a plea of guilty, including that the defendant agree to waive his or her right to appeal (see generally People v. Shervington, 25 A.D.3d 628, 807 N.Y.S.2d 144 ). Further, the defendant's contention that the plea was rendered involuntary because part of the plea allocution was conducted by the prosecutor is without merit. Here, the Supreme Court conducted the initial voir dire, and to the extent that the prosecution directed questions as part of the plea allocution, the court supervised such voir dire and it did not constitute an abrogation of the court's responsibility (see People v. Johnson, 140 A.D.3d 1188, 1189, 35 N.Y.S.3d 375 ; People v. Linares, 116 A.D.3d 792, 982 N.Y.S.2d 901 ; People v. Adio, 111 A.D.3d at 758, 974 N.Y.S.2d 557 ; People v. Bethune, 91 A.D.3d 966, 966–967, 937 N.Y.S.2d 596 ). The defendant's plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered (see People v. Seeber, 4 N.Y.3d 780, 793 N.Y.S.2d 826, 826 N.E.2d 797 ; People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 17, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170 ; People v. Bennett, 122 A.D.3d 871, 872, 996 N.Y.S.2d 369 ).

DILLON, J.P., SGROI, HINDS–RADIX, BRATHWAITE NELSON and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.