People v. Aguirre

16 Citing cases

  1. People v. Ramirez

    43 A.D.3d 1086 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 3 times

    Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. To the extent that the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel involves matter dehors the record, it may not be reviewed on direct appeal ( see People v Villacreses, 12 AD3d 624, 626; People v Aguirre, 304 AD2d 771). Insofar as we are able to review the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defense counsel provided meaningful representation ( see People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563, 565-566; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708).

  2. People v. Scott

    39 A.D.3d 570 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 12 times

    fact that the waiver was given in exchange for the dismissal of two other criminal charges did not make it the product of coercion ( cf. People v Page, 12 AD3d 622, 623, cert denied 545 US 1132; People v Bonton, 7 AD3d 634). Accordingly, the defendant validly waived appellate review of her claim that her sentence was excessive ( see People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825; People v Bevins, 27 AD3d 572, 573). Moreover, except to the extent that the alleged ineffectiveness of her counsel may have affected the voluntariness of her plea, appellate review of the defendant's challenge to her counsel's effectiveness is similarly precluded by her waiver ( see People v Demosthene, 2 AD3d 874; People v Herring, 274 AD2d 525; People v Porter, 268 AD2d 603). Insofar as the defendant contends that the voluntariness of her plea was affected by the alleged ineffective assistance of her counsel, that contention is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v Deale, 29 AD3d 602; People v Catts, 26 AD3d 341; People v Aguirre, 304 AD2d 771). In any event, the voluntariness of the defendant's plea was not affected by the alleged ineffectiveness of her attorney.

  3. State of N.Y. v. Williams

    36 A.D.3d 839 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 5 times

    The defendant's challenge to the validity of his plea based on the alleged ineffective assistance of his counsel is unpreserved for appellate review because he did not move to withdraw his plea on that basis before the court of first instance ( see People vClarke, 93 NY2d 904, 905; People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636, 637; People v Catts, 26 AD3d 341). To the extent that the defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel involve matters dehors the record, they may not be reviewed on direct appeal ( see People v Reels, 17 AD3d 488, 489; People v Aguirre, 304 AD2d 771). To the extent that the defendant's claims do not directly involve the plea bargaining process, he forfeited appellate review of those claims by pleading guilty ( see People v Cumba, 32 AD3d 444; People v Deale, 29 AD3d 602, 603) and, to the extent that the defendant's claims do not relate to the voluntariness of his plea, he forfeited appellate review of those claims by waiving his right to appeal ( see People v Gonzalez, 31 AD3d 786; People v Eaton, 14 AD3d 577; People v Robinson, 13 AD3d 398, 399; People v Miller, 306 AD2d 294; People v Brathwaite, 263 AD2d 89, 91-92; People v Ford, 250 AD2d 777).

  4. People v. Hassan

    36 A.D.3d 629 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

    In any event, there was no prosecutorial misconduct ( see People v Gray, 284 AD2d 664, 665; cf. People v Hill, 5 NY3d 772, 773). Moreover, to the extent that the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel involves matter dehors the record, it may not be reviewed on direct appeal ( see People v Aguirre, 304 AD2d 771). To the extent that the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel can be reviewed, the defense counsel provided meaningful representation ( see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147; People v Villacreses, 12 AD3d 624, 626).

  5. People Cumba

    32 A.D.3d 444 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 15 times

    In any event, the plea was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently ( see People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 16; People v Elting, 18 AD3d 770). By pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited appellate review of his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel insofar as they did not directly involve the plea bargaining process ( see People v Petgen, 55 NY2d 529, 535; People v Scalercio, 10 AD3d 697) and, to the extent that they involved matter which is dehors the record, they may not be reviewed on direct appeal (see People v Campbell, 6 AD 3d 623, lv denied 3 NY3d 637; People v Aguirre, 304 AD2d 771; People v O'Connor, 291 AD2d 573). The sentence imposed, which was the bargained-for sentence, was not excessive ( see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

  6. State v. Dallas

    31 A.D.3d 573 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

    Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court legally imposed consecutive sentences for his convictions of sodomy (now criminal sexual act) in the second degree, as each count involved a separate and distinct sexual act ( see People v Bonilla, 290 AD2d 454, 455; People v Gersten, 280 AD2d 487, 487-488; People v White, 261 AD2d 653, 657-658). To the extent that the defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel raised in his supplemental pro se brief involve matter dehors the record, they may not be reviewed on direct appeal ( see People v Reels, 17 AD3d 488, 489; People v Campbell, 6 AD3d 623, 624, lv denied 3 NY3d 637; People v Aguirre, 304 AD2d 771). Insofar as we are able to review the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant's trial counsel provided meaningful representation ( see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 714; People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 798-799; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). The defendant received an advantageous plea, and the record does not cast doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel (see People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404; People v Reels, supra; People v Boodhoo, 191 AD2d 448, 449).

  7. People v. Pierre

    30 A.D.3d 622 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 7 times

    The defendant's contentions that his confrontation rights were violated under Crawford v. Washington ( 541 US 36), that his trial should have been severed from the codefendants' trial because of antagonistic defenses, and that the consciousness of guilt charge was unbalanced and violated his right to remain silent, are unpreserved for appellate review and we decline to reach them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. The defendant's argument, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, that his counsel was ineffective for failing to present certain defenses is based on matter dehors the record and may not be considered on this appeal ( see People v. Aguirre, 304 AD2d 771). The defendant's remaining contentions raised in his supplemental pro se brief are without merit.

  8. People v. Deale

    29 A.D.3d 602 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 12 times
    Rejecting defendant's ineffective assistance claims, in part, because "most of [them] relate to matters which did not directly involve the plea bargaining process"

    We agree with the defendant that his purported waiver of his right to appeal was not effective ( see People v. Billingslea, 6 NY3d 248 [2006]; People v. McCain, 7 AD3d 815; People vBoustani, 300 AD2d 313). However, the defendant's present claims regarding the alleged ineffective assistance of his trial counsel are unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v. Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636; People v. Catts, 26 AD3d 341; People v. Aguirre, 304 AD2d 771; People v. Leo, 255 AD2d 458). Furthermore, most of these claims relate to matters which did not directly involve the plea-bargaining process ( see People v. Petgen, 55 NY2d 529; People v. Scalercio, 10 AD3d 697) or are dehors the record ( see People v. Campbell, 6 AD3d 623; People v. Stevenson, 5 AD3d 405; People v. Aguirre, supra). Moreover, since the defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive the sentence which was thereafter imposed, and which was the minimum sentence authorized by law, he has no basis to now complain that his sentence was excessive ( see People v. Gillyard, 237 AD2d 302; People v. Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816).

  9. People v. Sumpter

    27 A.D.3d 590 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 8 times

    There is no requirement that a defendant in a lineup be surrounded by individuals who are nearly identical to him in appearance ( see People v. Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336, cert denied 498 US 833; People v. Green, 14 AD3d 578; People v. Richards, 2 AD3d 883). The participants in the lineup were similar to the defendant in appearance, and any minor differences between them did not render the lineup impermissibly suggestive or create a substantial likelihood of misidentification ( see People v. Green, supra; People v. Villacreses, 12 AD3d 624; People v. Richards, supra; People v. Nieves, 183 AD2d 854). To the extent that the defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel raised in his supplemental pro se brief involve matter dehors the record, they may not be reviewed on direct appeal ( see People v. Campbell, 6 AD3d 623; People v. Aguirre, 304 AD2d 771). Insofar as we are able to review the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defense counsel provided meaningful representation ( see People v. Benevento, 91 NY2d 708; People v. Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796; People v. Baldi, 54 NY2d 137). The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit.

  10. People v. Catts

    26 A.D.3d 341 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 17 times

    The defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea of guilty on the grounds that it was not knowingly, voluntarily, or intelligently made and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Thus, his present contentions are unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v. Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636; People v. Nicholas, 8 AD3d 300; People v. Aguirre, 304 AD2d 771; People v. Leo, 255 AD2d 458). Furthermore, since the defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive the sentence which was thereafter actually imposed, and which was the minimum sentence authorized by law, he has no basis to now complain that his sentence was excessive ( see People v. Gillyard, 237 AD2d 302; People v. Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816).