From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Rinker

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Jul 8, 2016
141 A.D.3d 1177 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

07-08-2016

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Alva C. RINKER, Jr., Defendant–Appellant.

Karpinski, Stapleton & Tehan, P.C., Auburn (Adam H. Van Buskirk of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Keith A. Slep, District Attorney, Belmont (J. Thomas Fuoco of Counsel), for Respondent.


Appeal from a judgment of the Allegany County Court (Thomas P. Brown, J.), rendered May 7, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of reckless endangerment in the first degree.

Karpinski, Stapleton & Tehan, P.C., Auburn (Adam H. Van Buskirk of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.

Keith A. Slep, District Attorney, Belmont (J. Thomas Fuoco of Counsel), for Respondent.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of reckless endangerment in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.25 ). Defendant's challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution is unpreserved for our review inasmuch as he did not move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v. Williams, 91 A.D.3d 1299, 1299, 937 N.Y.S.2d 506 ; see generally People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ). This case does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement because “defendant's recitation of the facts underlying the crime pleaded to” did not “clearly cast [ ] significant doubt upon the defendant's guilt or otherwise call[ ] into question the voluntariness of the plea” (Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d at 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ). We decline to exercise our power to review defendant's challenge as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see People v. Carlisle, 120 A.D.3d 1607, 1607–1608, 992 N.Y.S.2d 828, lv. denied 24 N.Y.3d 1082, 1 N.Y.S.3d 9, 25 N.E.3d 346 ; see generally CPL 470.15[3][c] ). Finally, we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

CENTRA, J.P., LINDLEY, DeJOSEPH, NEMOYER, and TROUTMAN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Rinker

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Jul 8, 2016
141 A.D.3d 1177 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

People v. Rinker

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Alva C. RINKER, Jr.…

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

Date published: Jul 8, 2016

Citations

141 A.D.3d 1177 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 5481
34 N.Y.S.3d 926

Citing Cases

People v. Saddler

In appeal No. 1, defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the…

People v. Saddler

In appeal No. 1, defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the…