From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hankerson

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Feb 9, 2017
147 A.D.3d 1153 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

02-09-2017

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Tyree I. HANKERSON, Appellant.

Torrance L. Schmitz, Vestal, for appellant. Stephen K. Cornwell Jr., District Attorney, Binghamton (Stephen Ferri of counsel), for respondent.


Torrance L. Schmitz, Vestal, for appellant.

Stephen K. Cornwell Jr., District Attorney, Binghamton (Stephen Ferri of counsel), for respondent.

Before: GARRY, J.P., ROSE, DEVINE, CLARK and MULVEY, JJ.

GARRY, J.P.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Cawley, J.), rendered December 19, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of rape in the third degree.

Defendant waived indictment and pleaded guilty to rape in the third degree as charged in a superior court information. County Court thereafter sentenced him to 10 years of probation. Defendant appeals.

Defendant's challenge to the voluntariness and factual sufficiency of his plea is unpreserved for our review in the absence of an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v. Williams, 27 N.Y.3d 212, 219–220, 32 N.Y.S.3d 17, 51 N.E.3d 528 [2016] ; People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665–666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 [1988] ; People v. Larock, 139 A.D.3d 1241, 1242, 31 N.Y.S.3d 665 [2016], lv. denied 28 N.Y.3d 932, 40 N.Y.S.3d 360, 63 N.E.3d 80 [2016] ). Moreover, defendant did not make any statements during the plea allocution that were inconsistent with his guilt or otherwise called into question the voluntariness of his plea so as to trigger the narrow exception to the preservation rule (see People v. Forest, 141 A.D.3d 967, 968–969, 36 N.Y.S.3d 296 [2016] ; People v. Mann, 140 A.D.3d 1532, 1533, 33 N.Y.S.3d 779 [2016] ). To the extent that defendant claims that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel, the claim implicates the voluntariness of the plea and is likewise unpreserved for our review for the reasons noted above (see People v. Lloyd, 142 A.D.3d 1250, 1251, 37 N.Y.S.3d 917 [2016], lv. denied 28 N.Y.3d 1073, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, ––– N.E.3d –––– [2016] ; People v. Dobbs, 138 A.D.3d 1352, 1353, 28 N.Y.S.3d 918 [2016], lv. denied 28 N.Y.3d 929, 40 N.Y.S.3d 357, 63 N.E.3d 77 [2016] ).

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ROSE, DEVINE, CLARK and MULVEY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Hankerson

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Feb 9, 2017
147 A.D.3d 1153 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

People v. Hankerson

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Tyree I. HANKERSON…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Date published: Feb 9, 2017

Citations

147 A.D.3d 1153 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
147 A.D.3d 1153
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 1027

Citing Cases

People v. Young

We affirm. Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to his plea and that his plea…

People v. White

ng thereof (see People v. Lambert, 151 A.D.3d 1119, 1119, 55 N.Y.S.3d 526 [2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1092,…