People v. Welden
| Decision Date | 28 December 2017 |
| Docket Number | 107715 |
| Citation | 156 A.D.3d 1241,65 N.Y.S.3d 814 (Mem) |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Mark J. WELDEN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Brian M. Quinn, Albany, for appellant.
Karen Heggen, District Attorney, Ballston Spa (Gordon W. Eddy of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Rose, Devine, Mulvey and Rumsey, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Saratoga County (Scarano, J.), rendered September 4, 2014, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of aggravated driving while intoxicated with a child.
In satisfaction of an eight-count indictment and other pending charges, defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated driving while intoxicated with a child and waived his right to appeal. He was sentenced, in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, to a prison term of 1 to 3 years to be followed by a three-year conditional discharge that required him to install an interlock ignition device. Defendant appeals.
We affirm. Initially, we note that the waiver of the right to appeal was valid inasmuch as the record reflects that County Court distinguished the right to appeal as separate and distinct from the rights automatically forfeited by the guilty plea and defendant acknowledged that, after conferring with counsel, he understood and executed the written waiver of appeal. In view of the valid appeal waiver, defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the plea allocution is foreclosed (see People v. Sullivan, 153 A.D.3d 1519, 1519, 62 N.Y.S.3d 552 [2017] ; People v. Mahon, 148 A.D.3d 1303, 1304, 48 N.Y.S.3d 842 [2017] ). Defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his plea, although not precluded by the appeal waiver, is unpreserved for our review inasmuch as the record does not reflect that defendant made an appropriate postallocution motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Nor did defendant make any statements during the plea colloquy to warrant the application of the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665–666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 [1988] ; People v. Hopper, 153 A.D.3d 1045, 1046, 61 N.Y.S.3d 176 [2017] ; People v. Williams, 150 A.D.3d 1549, 1550, 56 N.Y.S.3d 357 [2017] ). Were we to consider defendant's contention, we would find that the record establishes that his plea was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Williams
...and intelligent (see People v. Conceicao, 26 N.Y.3d 375, 382–383, 23 N.Y.S.3d 124, 44 N.E.3d 199 [2015] ; People v. Welden, 156 A.D.3d 1241, 1241, 65 N.Y.S.3d 814 [2017] ). With respect to defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, his assertions that defense counsel pressured him......
-
People v. Gorman
...160 A.D.3d 1281, 1283, 76 N.Y.S.3d 257 [2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1146, 83 N.Y.S.3d 427, 108 N.E.3d 501 [2018] ; People v. Welden, 156 A.D.3d 1241, 1241, 65 N.Y.S.3d 814 [2017] ). The contention in defendant's pro se supplemental brief that unspecified "pertinent information might have bee......
-
People v. Chaney
...N.Y.S.3d 593, 34 N.E.3d 344 [2015] ). Thus, defendant's challenges to the sufficiency of the plea allocution (see People v. Welden, 156 A.D.3d 1241, 1241, 65 N.Y.S.3d 814 [2017] ) and to the agreed-upon sentence as harsh and excessive are precluded (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d at 255–256,......
-
People v. Wood
...defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the plea allocution related to the indictment is foreclosed (see People v. Welden, 156 A.D.3d 1241, 1241, 65 N.Y.S.3d 814 [2017] ; People v. Love, 137 A.D.3d 1486, 1487, 28 N.Y.S.3d 479 [2016] ). Defendant's general contention that his guilty plea......