People v. Wrobel

6 Citing cases

  1. People v. Bradley

    196 A.D.3d 1168 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)   Cited 10 times

    Even assuming, arguendo, that preservation was not required under the circumstances of this case (see generallyPeople v. Williams , 27 N.Y.3d 212, 219-225, 32 N.Y.S.3d 17, 51 N.E.3d 528 [2016] ; People v. Balkum , 169 A.D.3d 1358, 1359, 92 N.Y.S.3d 767 [4th Dept. 2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 974, 101 N.Y.S.3d 246, 124 N.E.3d 735 [2019] ), we conclude that defendant's contention lacks merit. Here, the record establishes that the court made no promise with respect to defendant's immediate participation in the CASAT program (seePeople v. Wrobel , 57 A.D.3d 1499, 1500, 869 N.Y.S.2d 841 [4th Dept. 2008], lv denied 12 N.Y.3d 789, 879 N.Y.S.2d 66, 906 N.E.2d 1100 [2009] ; People v. Martin , 55 A.D.3d 1304, 1304, 864 N.Y.S.2d 593 [4th Dept. 2008], lv denied 11 N.Y.3d 899, 873 N.Y.S.2d 275, 901 N.E.2d 769 [2008] ; People v. McKoy , 52 A.D.3d 1246, 1247, 861 N.Y.S.2d 871 [4th Dept. 2008], lv denied 11 N.Y.3d 833, 868 N.Y.S.2d 608, 897 N.E.2d 1092 [2008] ). Instead, the court fulfilled the promise it did make by issuing an order—which was provided by defense counsel to the court for signature—directing defendant's enrollment in that program, but only on the condition that defendant satisfied the statutory eligibility criteria for participation in such program (see Penal Law § 60.04 [6] ; see generallyMcKoy , 52 A.D.3d at 1247, 861 N.Y.S.2d 871 ).

  2. People v. Bradley

    No. 2021-04458 (N.Y. App. Div. Jul. 16, 2021)

    Even assuming, arguendo, that preservation was not required under the circumstances of this case (see generally People v Williams, 27 N.Y.3d 212, 219-225 [2016]; People v Balkum, 169 A.D.3d 1358, 1359 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 974 [2019]), we conclude that defendant's contention lacks merit. Here, the record establishes that the court made no promise with respect to defendant's immediate participation in the CASAT program (see People v Wrobel, 57 A.D.3d 1499, 1500 [4th Dept 2008], lv denied 12 N.Y.3d 789 [2009]; People v Martin, 55 A.D.3d 1304, 1304 [4th Dept 2008], lv denied 11 N.Y.3d 899 [2008]; People v McKoy, 52 A.D.3d 1246, 1247 [4th Dept 2008], lv denied 11 N.Y.3d 833 [2008]). Instead, the court fulfilled the promise it did make by issuing an order-which was provided by defense counsel to the court for signature-directing defendant's enrollment in that program, but only on the condition that defendant satisfied the statutory eligibility criteria for participation in such program (see Penal Law § 60.04 [6]; see generally McKoy, 52 A.D.3d at 1247).

  3. People v. Bradley

    2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 4458 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021)

    Even assuming, arguendo, that preservation was not required under the circumstances of this case (see generally People v Williams, 27 N.Y.3d 212, 219-225 [2016]; People v Balkum, 169 A.D.3d 1358, 1359 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 974 [2019]), we conclude that defendant's contention lacks merit. Here, the record establishes that the court made no promise with respect to defendant's immediate participation in the CASAT program (see People v Wrobel, 57 A.D.3d 1499, 1500 [4th Dept 2008], lv denied 12 N.Y.3d 789 [2009]; People v Martin, 55 A.D.3d 1304, 1304 [4th Dept 2008], lv denied 11 N.Y.3d 899 [2008]; People v McKoy, 52 A.D.3d 1246, 1247 [4th Dept 2008], lv denied 11 N.Y.3d 833 [2008]). Instead, the court fulfilled the promise it did make by issuing an order-which was provided by defense counsel to the court for signature-directing defendant's enrollment in that program, but only on the condition that defendant satisfied the statutory eligibility criteria for participation in such program (see Penal Law § 60.04 [6]; see generally McKoy, 52 A.D.3d at 1247).

  4. People v. Wrobel

    12 N.Y.3d 789 (N.Y. 2009)

    March 19, 2009. Appeal from the 4th Dept: 57 AD3d 1499 (Monroe). (Graffeo, J.).

  5. People v. Adams

    66 A.D.3d 1355 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 14 times

    We reject that contention. "`[T]here is no requirement for a uniform mandatory catechism of pleading defendants'" ( People v Seeber, 4 NY3d 780, 781, quoting People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that nothing in the plea allocution called into question defendant's admitted guilt or the voluntariness of the plea, and thus the court had no duty to conduct a further inquiry before denying defendant's motion ( see generally Seeber, 4 NY3d at 781-782; Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666). To the extent that the further contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel survives the plea ( see People v Wrobel, 57 AD3d 1499, lv denied 12 NY3d 789), we conclude that his contention lacks merit ( see generally People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404). "Defense counsel was not required to support defendant's pro se motion to withdraw the guilty plea, and we conclude that defense counsel did not take a position adverse to defendant" ( People v Klumpp, 269 AD2d 798, 799, lv denied 94 NY2d 922). We further conclude that the court properly sentenced defendant as a second felony offender, inasmuch as defendant waived strict compliance with CPL 400.21 when he admitted the predicate felony and did not challenge the predicate felony statement ( see People v Ross, 26 AD3d 887, affd 7 NY3d 905; People v Maynard, 294 AD2d 866, lv denied 98 NY2d 699). The contention of defendant that the sentence is illegal because the court assessed a DNA databank fee despite the fact that his DNA was already on file likewise is lacking in merit.

  6. People v. Milstead

    61 A.D.3d 1179 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 2 times

    Defendant now appeals, and we affirm. Inasmuch as defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea or vacate his judgment of conviction, his challenge to the voluntariness of his plea and his claim that his sentence was improperly limited are not preserved for our review ( see People v Sorey, 55 AD3d 1063, 1064, lv denied 11 NY3d 930; People v Hastings, 24 AD3d 954, 955). Furthermore, this case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation requirement ( see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666; see also People v Louree, 8 NY3d 541, 545-546), and reversal in the interest of justice is not warranted here. Contrary to defendant's argument, our review of the record reveals that there were no promises made regarding defendant's enrollment in the Comprehensive Alcohol and Substance Abuse Treatment program if he pleaded guilty ( see People v Wrobel, 57 AD3d 1499, 1500; People v Martin, 55 AD3d 1304, 1304, lv denied 11 NY3d 899; cf. People v Armstead, 52 AD3d 966, 967-968). Defendant's claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel is similarly unavailing.