From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Shell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 18, 2010
73 A.D.3d 1095 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 2007-00859.

May 18, 2010.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.), rendered January 9, 2007, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Salvatore C. Adamo, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Joan H.McCarthy of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Rivera, J.P., Florio, Dickerson, Chambers and Lott, JJ.


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Since the defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea prior to sentencing, his contention on appeal that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered has not been preserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Antoine, 59 AD3d 560; People v Castillo-Cordero, 54 AD3d 1054; People v Bevins, 27 AD3d 572; People v Martin, 7 AD3d 640). In any event, the record demonstrates that his plea of guilty was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made ( see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543; People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 283; People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909, 910-911; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 16; People v Nixon, 21 NY2d 338, cert denied sub nom. Robinson v New York, 393 US 1067). To the extent that the defendant's contentions regarding any alleged ineffective assistance of counsel rest on matter outside the record, they are not reviewable on direct appeal ( see People v Ali, 55 AD3d 919; People v Drago, 50 AD3d 920). Insofar as the contentions are reviewable, we find that the defendant received meaningful representation ( see People v Drago, 50 AD3d 920; People v Brooks, 36 AD3d 929, 930; People v Grimes, 35 AD3d 882, 883).

Since the defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive the sentence which was thereafter actually imposed, he has no basis now to complain that the sentence was excessive ( see People v De Alvarez, 59 AD3d 732; People v Fanelli, 8 AD3d 296; People v Mejia, 6 AD3d 630, 631; People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). In any event, the sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).


Summaries of

People v. Shell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 18, 2010
73 A.D.3d 1095 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

People v. Shell

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CURTIS S. SHELL…

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

Date published: May 18, 2010

Citations

73 A.D.3d 1095 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 4427
902 N.Y.S.2d 367

Citing Cases

People v. King

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed. The defendant's contention that her plea of guilty to promoting…

People v. Delvecchio

Consequently, we conclude that defendant did not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waive his right to…