People v. Weston
| Citation | 43 N.Y.S.3d 413,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 08254,145 A.D.3d 746 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Atiq WESTON, appellant. |
| Decision Date | 07 December 2016 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
145 A.D.3d 746
43 N.Y.S.3d 413
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 08254
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Atiq WESTON, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec. 7, 2016.
Michele Marte–Indzonka, Newburgh, NY, for appellant, and appellant pro se.
David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Goshen, NY (Robert H. Middlemiss of counsel), for respondent.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.
Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Freehill, J.), rendered June 16, 2014, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts) under Indictment No. 13–00494, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence, and (2) a judgment of the same court, also rendered June 16, 2014, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree under Superior Court Information No. 14–00297, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his pleas of guilty were coerced by the County Court because of the restrictions imposed by it in various protective orders and lockdown orders, is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw his pleas or otherwise raise this issue before the court (see People v. Toxey, 86 N.Y.2d 725, 726, 631 N.Y.S.2d 119, 655 N.E.2d 160 ; People v. McCracken, 138 A.D.3d 1147, 1147, 28 N.Y.S.3d 890 ; People v. Gomez, 137 A.D.3d 1161, 1162, 27 N.Y.S.3d 650 ; People v. Yanez–Mejia, 133 A.D.3d 801, 801, 19 N.Y.S.3d 176 ). In any event, the defendant's claim is belied by the record, which reveals that the defendant acknowledged under oath that nobody was forcing, threatening, or coercing him to plead guilty, and that he was entering the pleas freely and voluntarily (see People v. McVay, 140 A.D.3d 1090, 1090–1091, 33 N.Y.S.3d 742 ;
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weston v. Capra
...... Manslaughter in the First Degree; and Criminal Possession of. a Weapon in the Fourth Degree, in connection with the killing. (the “Kwiatkowski Killing”). (Docket No. 28-1 at. 2). The next month, the indictment was dismissed on the. People's motion, based on their. . 1 . . determination that a witness who had implicated Petitioner. lied in the grand jury proceeding. (Docket No. 27 ¶ 2). The investigation of the Kwiatkowski Killing was left open. ( Id. ). . . ......
-
Dutka v. Odierno
...), and where varying inferences as to causation are possible, resolution of the issue of proximate cause is a question for the jury (see 43 N.Y.S.3d 413Ernest v. Red Cr. Cent. School Dist., 93 N.Y.2d 664, 674, 695 N.Y.S.2d 531, 717 N.E.2d 690 ). As such, even a finding that Odierno violated......
-
People v. Gott, 2016–03003
...the extent that she claims that ineffective assistance of counsel may have affected the voluntariness of the pleas (see People v. Weston, 145 A.D.3d 746, 747, 43 N.Y.S.3d 413 ; People v. Perazzo, 65 A.D.3d 1058, 1059, 886 N.Y.S.2d 43 ). "Moreover, ‘[b]y pleading guilty, the defendant forfei......
-
People v. Hutter
...counsel, except to the extent that counsel's alleged ineffective assistance affected the voluntariness of his plea (see People v. Weston, 145 A.D.3d 746, 747, 43 N.Y.S.3d 413 ). To the extent that the defendant contends that counsel's alleged ineffectiveness affected the voluntariness of hi......