From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Serna

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Oct 1, 1992
186 A.D.2d 836 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

October 1, 1992

Appeal from the


County Court of Albany County, Harris, J., Keegan, J.

Defendant contends that his guilty plea was not entered voluntarily but resulted from coercion by defense counsel and denial of his right to effective assistance of counsel. Defendant's contention that he was coerced by defense counsel is belied by the minutes of the plea proceeding in which County Court elicited from defendant that he was not coerced or threatened by anyone to enter the plea. That defendant claims otherwise merely presented a question of credibility for County Court to resolve (see, People v Kelsch, 96 A.D.2d 677; cf., People v Alexander, 161 A.D.2d 1035, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 851). Defendant also contends that he was not informed of his right to appear before the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury proceeding was apparently initiated by indictment. The People were therefore not required to notify defendant of his right to appear (CPL 190.50; see, People v Wong, 163 A.D.2d 738, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 992). In any event, defendant waived his right to appear by not making a timely motion to dismiss the indictment (see, People v Gonzales, 168 A.D.2d 743, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 906). Further, defendant does not claim that he would have availed himself of that right, and thus defense counsel's alleged failure to secure defendant an opportunity to testify before the Grand Jury did not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel because no prejudice appeared to accrue to defendant (see, id.).

Defendant argues on his direct appeal from the judgment of conviction that the 15 years to life prison sentence he received was harsh and excessive. We disagree. Defendant's plea was entered in full satisfaction of a two-count indictment. The sentence was well within the statutory guidelines (see, Penal Law § 70.00 [a]; [3] [a] [i]) and was in accordance with the plea bargain. Given these circumstances and the serious nature of the crime involved, we find no reason to disturb the sentence imposed by County Court (see, People v Sinclair, 150 A.D.2d 950).

Yesawich Jr., J.P., Levine, Crew III, Mahoney and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment and order are affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Serna

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Oct 1, 1992
186 A.D.2d 836 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Serna

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MIGUEL I. SERNA…

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

Date published: Oct 1, 1992

Citations

186 A.D.2d 836 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
589 N.Y.S.2d 518

Citing Cases

People v. Wright

Likewise, we find no merit to defendant's contention that his sentence is harsh and excessive. Given the…

People v. Sayles

Turning to defendant's additional argument that he was coerced by counsel into entering the plea, we perceive…