People v. Votra
| Decision Date | 07 June 2019 |
| Docket Number | KA 17–00614,203 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jason R. VOTRA, Defendant–Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
173 A.D.3d 1643
102 N.Y.S.3d 373
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Jason R. VOTRA, Defendant–Appellant.
203
KA 17–00614
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Entered: June 7, 2019
D.J. & J.A. CIRANDO, PLLC, SYRACUSE (JOHN A. CIRANDO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
GREGORY S. OAKES, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, OSWEGO (AMY L. HALLENBECK OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, DEJOSEPH, CURRAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree ( Penal Law § 220.06[1] ). Contrary to defendant's contention, the record establishes that he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to appeal, and that he understood that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from the rights automatically forfeited by pleading guilty (see People v. Bryant, 28 N.Y.3d 1094, 1096, 45 N.Y.S.3d 335, 68 N.E.3d 60 [2016] ; People v. Moore, 158 A.D.3d 1312, 1312, 68 N.Y.S.3d 361 [4th Dept. 2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1015, 78 N.Y.S.3d 285, 102 N.E.3d 1066 [2018] ).
Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's contention that the proceedings were electronically recorded and later transcribed in violation of Judiciary Law § 295 survives both the guilty plea and waiver of the right to appeal (see generally People v. Harrison, 85 N.Y.2d 794, 796–797, 628 N.Y.S.2d 939, 652 N.E.2d 638 [1995] ), we conclude that the contention is unpreserved because defendant did not object to the use of the electronic recording device or the absence of a stenographer (see People v. Bennett, 165 A.D.3d 1624, 1625, 85 N.Y.S.3d 662 [4th Dept. 2018] ; People v. Rogers, 159 A.D.3d 1558, 1559, 72 N.Y.S.3d 758 [4th Dept. 2018], lv denied 31...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Fuqua
...930, 725 N.Y.S.2d 907 [4th Dept. 2001], lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 656, 737 N.Y.S.2d 57, 762 N.E.2d 935 [2001] ; see also People v. Votra , 173 A.D.3d 1643, 1644, 102 N.Y.S.3d 373 [4th Dept. 2019] ). Here, defendant did not object to the audibility of the recordings or request an audibility hearin......
-
People v. Swank
...because defendant did not object to the use of the electronic recording device or the absence of a stenographer (see People v. Votra, 173 A.D.3d 1643, 1644, 102 N.Y.S.3d 373 [4th Dept. 2019] ; People v. Bennett, 165 A.D.3d 1624, 1625, 85 N.Y.S.3d 662 [4th Dept. 2018] ; People v. Rogers, 159......
-
Valente v. Utica First Ins. Co., 186
...without costs.Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking, inter alia, a declaration that defendant is obligated to provide 173 A.D.3d 1643 insurance coverage for damage to plaintiffs' house pursuant to a homeowners' insurance policy issued by defendant. Defendant appeals and plain......