People v. Coles

7 Citing cases

  1. People v. Rivera

    33 A.D.3d 942 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 11 times

    To the extent that the contention can be reviewed, it is without merit ( see People v Bicet, 180 AD2d 692, 693; People v Torres, 96 AD2d 604). The defendant's contention that his pleas of guilty were coerced by the prosecution's promise of leniency for his wife is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw his pleas on that basis, or otherwise raise this issue before the court of first instance ( see People v Clarke, 93 NY2d 904, 906; People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636, 637; People v Coles, 240 AD2d 419). In any event, the record belies the defendant's claim of coercion.

  2. People v. Whitaker

    27 A.D.3d 499 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 5 times

    Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. The defendant's contention that his plea was coerced is unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant failed to move to vacate his plea or otherwise raise this issue before the County Court ( see People v. Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636, 637; People v. Reels, 17 AD3d 488; People v. Konstantinides, 295 AD2d 537, 538-539; People v. Coles, 240 AD2d 419). Furthermore, the defendant's claim that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent because it was prompted by misrepresentations regarding the validity of a prior conviction cannot be reviewed on direct appeal since it is based on matter which is dehors the record ( see People v. Spotards, 23 AD3d 586; People v. Reels, supra at 489).

  3. People v. Spotards

    23 A.D.3d 586 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 9 times

    Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. The defendant's challenge to the validity of his plea is unpreserved for appellate review since it was not raised in the County Court ( see People v. Clarke, 93 NY2d 904, 905; People v. Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636, 637; People v. Coles, 240 AD2d 419). In any event, the defendant's claim that his plea was not knowing, voluntarily, and intelligent because it resulted from his counsel's failure to advise him that he would be sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender cannot be reviewed on direct appeal since it is based on matter which is dehors the record ( see People v. Reels, 17 AD3d 488, 489; People v. Villacreses, 12 AD3d 624, 626).

  4. People v. Cobb

    19 A.D.3d 506 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 8 times

    Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. The defendant's contention that he was coerced into pleading guilty is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v. Clarke, 93 NY2d 904, 906; People v. Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636, 637; People v. Coles, 240 AD2d 419). In any event, nothing in the record of the plea allocution calls into question the voluntary, knowing, and intelligent nature of the defendant's bargained-for plea ( see People v. Seeber, 4 NY3d 780; People v. Banister, 15 AD3d 497). The defendant's claim that his plea was the product of ineffective assistance of counsel was belied by his acknowledgment at the plea proceeding that he was satisfied with the representation of his attorney ( see People v. LaFurno, 8 AD3d 498; People v. Weekes, 289 AD2d 599).

  5. People v. Reels

    17 A.D.3d 488 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 23 times

    The defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily pleaded guilty ( see People v. Harris, 61 NY2d 9). The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was coerced is unpreserved for appellate review. The defendant did not move to vacate his plea, nor did he otherwise raise this issue before the County Court ( see People v. Konstantinides, 295 AD2d 537, 538-539; People v. Coles, 240 AD2d 419). In any event, the County Court acted properly in advising him of the authorized maximum sentence which could have been imposed had he been convicted after trial and the actual sentence to be imposed under the plea agreement ( see People v. Allen, 273 AD2d 319; People v. Green, 240 AD2d 513; People v. Jones, 232 AD2d 505).

  6. People v. Williams

    13 A.D.3d 661 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)   Cited 1 times

    The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was coerced is unpreserved for appellate review. The defendant did not move to vacate his plea, nor did he otherwise raise this issue before the Supreme Court ( see People v. Konstantinides, 295 AD2d 537, 538-539; People v. Coles, 240 AD2d 419). The defendant's waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel except to the extent that it affected the voluntariness of his plea ( see People v. Demosthene, 2 AD3d 874; People v. Herring, 274 AD2d 525, 526; People v. Holmes, 268 AD2d 597).

  7. People v. Javis

    260 A.D.2d 579 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)   Cited 1 times

    Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. The defendant's contention that her plea of guilty was coerced and was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel is not preserved for appellate review ( see, People v. Coles, 240 A.D.2d 419; People v. Leo, 255 A.D.2d 458; People v. Lu Yang Tong, 238 A.D.2d 607). The defendant's contention that the sentence is excessive was effectively waived by her as part of her plea bargain ( see, People v. Callahan, 80 N.Y.2d 273; People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1).