From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Shaw

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 11, 2003
2 A.D.3d 974 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

13583B.

Decided and Entered: December 11, 2003.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Bruhn, J.), rendered September 28, 2000, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Michael C. Ross, Bloomingburg, for appellant.

Donald A. Williams, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Kane, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


We previously assigned new counsel to represent defendant on this appeal ( 301 A.D.2d 751, 751) and now defendant's sole legal argument is that his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary or intelligent. This issue, however, has not been preserved for our review because defendant did not move to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v. Thomas, 307 A.D.2d 592, 592, lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 625; People v. De Berardinis, 304 A.D.2d 914, 915, lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 580). Although defendant was initially hesitant to accept the negotiated plea agreement, County Court properly made further and repeated inquiries to ensure that defendant understood the nature of the charge and that the plea was intelligently and voluntarily entered and, thus, the narrow exception to the preservation rule is inapplicable (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666-667; People v. Camp, 302 A.D.2d 629, 630, lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 593).

In any event, considering defendant's claim, we find it to be without merit. The transcript of the plea proceedings discloses that County Court went to great lengths to explain to defendant the ramifications of pleading guilty, taking special care to specifically address those matters about which defendant initially expressed confusion. After the court clarified these matters, defendant indicated that he understood them and conferred with counsel. While defendant initially professed ignorance of the circumstances of the crime, he ultimately admitted that he sold cocaine in Ulster County in August 1999. As the record makes clear, "[a]ny reluctance on the part of defendant in entering his guilty plea is attributable not to threats or coercion but to defendant's `unhappiness with the harsh realities of his situation'" (People v. Wilmer, 191 A.D.2d 850, 850-851, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1022, quotingPeople v. Jimenez, 179 A.D.2d 840, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 949; see People v. Evans, 193 A.D.2d 960, 961).

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Carpinello and Kane, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Shaw

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 11, 2003
2 A.D.3d 974 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

People v. Shaw

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOSHUA SHAW, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Dec 11, 2003

Citations

2 A.D.3d 974 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
768 N.Y.S.2d 392

Citing Cases

People v. Coleman

As defendant has failed to move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction, his claim that his…