People v. Vanvleet

• Decision Date: 20 March 2015
• Docket Number: 225 KA 14-00033
• Citation: 4 N.Y.S.3d 797,126 A.D.3d 1359,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 02295
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Alexander VANVLEET, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

126 A.D.3d 1359

4 N.Y.S.3d 797

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 02295

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent

v.Alexander VANVLEET, Defendant–Appellant.

225 KA 14-00033

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

March 20, 2015.

Steven J. Getman, Ovid, for Defendant–Appellant.

Alexander Vanvleet, Defendant–Appellant Pro Se.

Barry L. Porsch, District Attorney, Waterloo, for Respondent.

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, and WHALEN, JJ.

OpinionMEMORANDUM:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a plea of guilty of criminal mischief in the second degree (Penal Law § 145.10 ). Contrary to defendant's contention in his main and pro se supplemental briefs, County Court did not err in failing, sua sponte, to inquire at sentencing whether defendant wished to withdraw his plea based upon the failure of the People to provide certain discovery and a response to a demand for a bill of particulars. To the extent that defendant's contention may be construed as a challenge to the voluntariness of his plea, he failed to preserve that contention for our review because he did not move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v. Laney, 117 A.D.3d 1481, 1482, 984 N.Y.S.2d 727 ). In any event, his contention lacks merit in that respect because “ ‘nothing in the plea colloquy casts significant doubt on defendant's guilt or the voluntariness of the plea’ ” (id. ). Defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses his contentions in his pro se supplemental brief that he was denied due process of law based upon the failure of the People to comply with his discovery demand and demand for a bill of particulars (see People v. Oliveri, 49 A.D.3d 1208, 1209, 856 N.Y.S.2d 354 ); that the arrest warrant was invalid (see People v. Garland, 69 A.D.3d 1122, 1123, 891 N.Y.S.2d 921, lv. denied 14 N.Y.3d 887, 903 N.Y.S.2d 776, 929 N.E.2d 1011 ); and that he was denied the right to counsel following his arrest (see generally People v. Wilkins, 1 A.D.3d 962, 963, 767 N.Y.S.2d 325, lv. denied 1 N.Y.3d 603, 776 N.Y.S.2d 234, 808 N.E.2d 370 ). Defendant's remaining contentions in his pro se supplemental brief that he was not given notice of the grand jury proceeding and that the grand jury proceeding was untimely were forfeited by his guilty plea (see People v. Hansen, 95 N.Y.2d 227, 230–231, 715 N.Y.S.2d 369, 738 N.E.2d 773 ; see generally People v. Watkins, 77 A.D.3d 1403, 1404, 909 N.Y.S.2d 233, lv. denied 15 N.Y.3d 956...