People v. Thompson

6 Citing cases

  1. People v. Guillermo

    254 A.D.2d 527 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 2 times

    Defendant contends that the sentence imposed is harsh and excessive. We disagree. Given defendant's prior drug-related conviction as well as the fact that defendant agreed to the sentence as part of the plea bargain, we decline to disturb the sentence imposed ( see, People v. Thompson, 234 A.D.2d 709, 710, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 1016; People v. Thompson, 233 A.D.2d 615). Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Crew III and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur.

  2. People v. Shawn E. Ubrich

    245 A.D.2d 886 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)   Cited 7 times

    The threshold inquiry on this appeal is the validity of defendant's waiver of his right to appeal. A review of the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding such waiver (see, People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 11) indicates that defendant was not on any drugs or medication at the time of his plea, he discussed the case thoroughly with his attorney, and he was advised in considerable detail by County Court of the rights he would be giving up, including the waiver of his right to appeal. The record further indicates that defendant, who is familiar with the criminal justice system, acknowledged his understanding of the significance of these waivers. In these circumstances, we conclude that defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see, People v. Moissett, 76 N.Y.2d 909, 911; People v. Hanna, 236 A.D.2d 742, 744, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 1094; People v. Thompson, 234 A.D.2d 709, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 1016). Furthermore, as defendant failed to move to withdraw or vacate his guilty plea, his further challenge to the knowing, voluntary and intelligent nature of said plea is precluded (see, People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665; People v. Rojas, 238 A.D.2d 727, 729), and the limited circumstances that would allow such a challenge in the absence of a formal postallocution motion (see, People v. Toxey, 86 N.Y.2d 725, 726; People v. Lopez, supra, at 666) are not present here.

  3. People v. Brown

    239 A.D.2d 784 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)   Cited 4 times

    Defendant further indicated that he had not been coerced or threatened into pleading guilty, that he was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs and that he was entering a plea of guilty freely and voluntarily. In view of this, we find that County Court entered into a meaningful colloquy with defendant and that defendant's plea was not coerced even if he was persuaded to plead guilty because he would have faced a harsher sentence had he been convicted after trial (see, People v. Thompson, 234 A.D.2d 709, 710; People v. Berezansky, 229 A.D.2d 768, 769-770, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 919). Likewise, we do not find that the sentence imposed is either harsh or excessive.

  4. People v. Lesame

    239 A.D.2d 801 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)   Cited 12 times

    Moreover, defense counsel indicated on the record that he had discussed the plea offer in detail with defendant and advised defendant to accept it. During the plea allocution, defendant indicated to County Court that he wished to plead guilty to attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree, that he understood the rights he was waiving by pleading guilty and that he was not coerced into pleading guilty or under the influence of alcohol. In response to the court's reading of the indictment, defendant proceeded to admit that he attempted to commit the act described therein. Under these circumstances, we find that defendant entered a voluntary, knowing and intelligent plea of guilty (see, People v. Comer, supra, at 658; People v Thompson, 234 A.D.2d 709; People v. Berezansky, supra, at 769) and that he admitted facts during the allocution which were sufficient to establish his guilt (see, People v. Santos, 206 A.D.2d 568; People v. Marlowe, 108 A.D.2d 955, 956). Cardona, P.J., White, Casey and Spain, JJ., concur.

  5. People v. Raquel

    238 A.D.2d 766 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)   Cited 4 times

    Defendant's responses indicate that he fully understood the court's admonitions and the consequences of his plea. Accordingly, we conclude that defendant's guilty plea was voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently made ( see, People v. Thompson, 234 A.D.2d 709; People v. Thompkins, 233 A.D.2d 759). Likewise, we find defendant's waiver of his right to appeal to have been voluntarily and intelligently made since County Court fully apprised him of his right to appeal and the consequences of his waiver of that right, which defendant indicated that he understood ( see, People v. Berezansky, 229 A.D.2d 768, 770-771, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 919).

  6. People v. Battiste

    238 A.D.2d 724 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)   Cited 5 times

    Initially, inasmuch as defendant did not move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction, he may not challenge the sufficiency of his guilty plea on appeal ( see, People v. Miller, 234 A.D.2d 804; People v. Ortiz, 234 A.D.2d 793; People v. Sloan, 228 A.D.2d 976, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 994). Nevertheless, were we to consider the merits of this claim, we would find it to be unavailing. Upon reviewing the transcript of the plea allocution, it is apparent that County Court adequately explained the implications of a plea of guilty and that defendant expressed his understanding of the same, his satisfaction with the services of his attorney, and his desire to enter a plea of guilty of his own free will. Thus, we conclude on the record before us that the plea was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made ( see, People v. Thompson, 234 A.D.2d 709; People v. Nardi, 232 A.D.2d 673, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 927; People v. Berezansky, 229 A.D.2d 768, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 919). We reject as being without merit defendant's argument that County Court should hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the fairness of a plea agreement where a defendant is represented by a Public Defender.