From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Contreras

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Mar 20, 2019
170 A.D.3d 1034 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

Opinion

2016–00994 Ind.No. 13–1273

03-20-2019

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Jose CONTRERAS, Appellant.

Del Atwell, East Hampton, NY, for appellant. Anthony A. Scarpino, Jr., District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (William C. Milaccio, Steven A. Bender, and Jennifer Spencer of counsel), for respondent.


Del Atwell, East Hampton, NY, for appellant.

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

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., JEFFREY A. COHEN, ROBERT J. MILLER BETSY BARROS, JJ.

DECISION & ORDERAppeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Richard A. Molea, J., at plea; Barry E. Warhit, J., at sentence), rendered January 21, 2015, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and sentenced, in accordance with the plea agreement, to a determinate term of imprisonment of 25 years followed by a period of 3 years of postrelease supervision.Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record demonstrates that he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to appeal (see People v. Sanders, 25 N.Y.3d 337, 12 N.Y.S.3d 593, 34 N.E.3d 344 ; People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645 ; People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ).

The defendant's valid appeal waiver precludes appellate review of his challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea allocution (see People v. Hicks, 134 A.D.3d 854, 19 N.Y.S.3d 907 ; People v. Hyland, 123 A.D.3d 736, 737, 996 N.Y.S.2d 375 ; People v. King, 115 A.D.3d 986, 987, 982 N.Y.S.2d 178 ).

Although a claim that a plea of guilty was not voluntary survives a valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 10, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022 ; People v. Persaud, 109 A.D.3d 626, 970 N.Y.S.2d 324 ), the defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent, since he did not move to withdraw his plea on this ground prior to the imposition of sentence (see CPL 220.60[3] ; People v. Clarke, 93 N.Y.2d 904, 906, 690 N.Y.S.2d 501, 712 N.E.2d 668 ; People v. Lujan, 114 A.D.3d 963, 964, 980 N.Y.S.2d 815 ; People v. Ovalle, 112 A.D.3d 971, 977 N.Y.S.2d 401 ; People v. Devodier, 102 A.D.3d 884, 958 N.Y.S.2d 220 ). In any event, there is no basis in the record to support the defendant's contention that he did not understand the proceedings against him (see People v. Tissiera, 154 A.D.3d 720, 721, 61 N.Y.S.3d 665 ; People v. Morris, 147 A.D.3d 1083, 1084, 48 N.Y.S.3d 425 ; People v. Narbonne, 131 A.D.3d 626, 627, 14 N.Y.S.3d 917 ). The record demonstrates that the defendant's plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. Moreover, even though the presentence investigation report indicated that the defendant denied his guilt as to manslaughter in the first degree, the defendant reaffirmed his guilt of that crime under oath at sentencing (see People v. Axel M., 122 A.D.3d 946, 947, 998 N.Y.S.2d 93 ; People v. Burton, 133 A.D.2d 276, 277, 519 N.Y.S.2d 65 ).

The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel except to the extent that the alleged ineffective assistance affected the voluntariness of his plea (see People v. Upson, 134 A.D.3d 1058, 21 N.Y.S.3d 688 ; People v. Haywood, 122 A.D.3d 769, 769–770, 996 N.Y.S.2d 137 ). To the extent that the defendant is claiming that the ineffective assistance of counsel rendered his plea involuntary, the defendant's contention is without merit, inter alia, given the favorable plea agreement and the strong evidence of the defendant's guilt, and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel (see People v. Caban, 5 N.Y.3d 143, 152, 800 N.Y.S.2d 70, 833 N.E.2d 213 ; People v. Henry, 95 N.Y.2d 563, 566, 721 N.Y.S.2d 577, 744 N.E.2d 112 ; People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 ; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400 ).

RIVERA, J.P., COHEN, MILLER and BARROS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Contreras

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Mar 20, 2019
170 A.D.3d 1034 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
Case details for

People v. Contreras

Case Details

Full title:The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Jose Contreras…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Date published: Mar 20, 2019

Citations

170 A.D.3d 1034 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
95 N.Y.S.3d 325
2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 2109

Citing Cases

People v. Ringler

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record demonstrates that he knowingly, voluntarily, and…

People v. Walters

On appeal, the defendant contends that the County Court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his plea of…