From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Alexander

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 22, 2003
305 A.D.2d 857 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

13238

May 22, 2003.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Bruhn, J.), rendered May 10, 2000, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Timothy E. Austin, Albany, for appellant.

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

Before: Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


Defendant was indicted and charged with seven counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, which allegedly occurred at various locations in and around the Village of Ellenville, Ulster County, in 1999. Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of the indictment in full satisfaction thereof and, in accordance with a plea agreement, was sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 4 to 12 years. Defendant appeals.

Initially, we reject defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his plea. Inasmuch as defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, he has not preserved this issue for our review (see People v. Barnes, 302 A.D.2d 623, 623, 753 N.Y.S.2d 760, 761; People v. Fulford, 296 A.D.2d 661, 662). Were we to consider defendant's challenge, we would find it without merit. While the record reflects, as defendant claims, that he was unable to recall the specific sale to which he allocuted, he admitted making numerous cocaine sales, including one sale in Ulster County on the date alleged in the count of the indictment to which he pleaded guilty.

We likewise reject defendant's assertion that County Court erred in failing to assign new counsel and that his trial counsel failed to provide him with meaningful representation. Defendant did not demonstrate good cause for the requested substitution of assigned counsel (see People v. Sides, 75 N.Y.2d 822, 824) and, in light of the extremely advantageous plea bargain, we cannot say that defendant received less than meaningful representation (see People v. Allen, 301 A.D.2d 874, 875).

Peters, Spain, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Alexander

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 22, 2003
305 A.D.2d 857 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

People v. Alexander

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOSEPH ALEXANDER…

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

Date published: May 22, 2003

Citations

305 A.D.2d 857 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
758 N.Y.S.2d 844