Opinion
7 KA 15–01497
02-01-2019
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jermaiine E. POINDEXTER, Defendant–Appellant.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES A. HOBBS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (LISA GRAY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES A. HOBBS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (LISA GRAY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDERIt is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree ( Penal Law § 220.16[1] ). We reject defendant's contention that the plea was not voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently entered. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's statements triggered a duty by County Court to conduct a further inquiry to ensure that the plea was knowing and voluntary (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 [1988] ), we conclude that the court "properly conducted such an inquiry and that defendant's responses to the court's subsequent questions removed [any] doubt about [his] guilt" ( People v. Vogt, 150 A.D.3d 1704, 1705, 54 N.Y.S.3d 259 [4th Dept. 2017] [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Defendant's remaining contention that the court abdicated its sentencing discretion to the People is without merit. The court never indicated that it was bound by the People's sentence promise (cf. People v. Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302, 305, 437 N.Y.S.2d 961, 419 N.E.2d 864 [1981] ; People v. Dupont, 164 A.D.3d 1649, 1650, 84 N.Y.S.3d 648 [4th Dept. 2018] ).