From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Henning

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 11, 2003
2 A.D.3d 979 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

14171.

Decided and Entered: December 11, 2003.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Herrick, J.), rendered June 26, 2002, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of robbery in the second degree.

Jack H. Weiner, Chatham, for appellant.

Paul A. Clyne, District Attorney, Albany (Christopher D. Horn of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Peters, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


Defendant pleaded guilty to robbery in the second degree in satisfaction of a three-count indictment. Under the terms of the plea agreement, he was to be sentenced to a nine-year prison term to be followed by a five-year period of postrelease supervision, and waive his right to appeal. At sentencing, however, defendant made a pro se motion to withdraw his plea on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. County Court denied the motion and sentenced defendant in accordance with the plea agreement. Defendant now appeals.

Initially, we note that defendant's voluntary waiver of the right to appeal precludes him from asserting ineffective assistance of counsel except to the extent that it allegedly impacted the voluntariness of his plea (see People v. Clifford, 295 A.D.2d 697, 698, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 709; People v. Grant, 294 A.D.2d 671, 672, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 730). In this regard, defendant contends that his trial counsel misled him and coerced him to plead guilty. Our review of the record, however, does not substantiate defendant's assertions.

During the plea colloquy, defendant indicated to County Court that he understood the rights he was relinguishing by entering a guilty plea and had not been coerced or threatened to do so. He further stated that he had discussed the case with his attorney, including potential defenses, and was satisfied with counsel's representation. The record also reveals that defense counsel made appropriate discovery requests and secured a favorable plea bargain. Under these circumstances, we conclude that defendant was provided meaningful representation (see People v. Collins, 306 A.D.2d 695, lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 619; People v. De Berardinis, 304 A.D.2d 914, 916, lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 580).

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Henning

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 11, 2003
2 A.D.3d 979 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

People v. Henning

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. SHAWN HENNING…

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

Date published: Dec 11, 2003

Citations

2 A.D.3d 979 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
768 N.Y.S.2d 394

Citing Cases

People v. Williams

Next, defendant argues that County Court erred in denying his request before the start of the Huntley hearing…

People v. Washington

He then admitted that he remained unlawfully in the apartment of his girlfriend's uncle with the intent to…