THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK RESPONDENT v. FRANKLIN CHAMBERS DEFENDANT APPELLANT (2025)

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

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. FRANKLIN CHAMBERS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

781 Decided: November 21, 2025

PRESENT: CURRAN, J.P., BANNISTER, OGDEN, DELCONTE, AND HANNAH, JJ.

MICHAEL J. STACHOWSKI, P.C., BUFFALO (MICHAEL J. STACHOWSKI OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. MICHAEL J. KEANE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (MICHAEL J. HILLERY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.30 [4]). We note at the outset that defendant does not challenge the validity of his waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Rosado-Thomas, 181 AD3d 1166, 1167 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1048 [2020]). Defendant contends that his guilty plea was involuntary because, during the plea colloquy, County Court referenced his right to a trial, not his right to a jury trial (see generally Boykin v Alabama, 395 US 238, 243 [1969]). Although that contention survives the unchallenged appeal waiver (see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545, 558 [2019], cert denied — US —, 140 S Ct 2634 [2020]; People v Seymore, 188 AD3d 1767, 1768 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 1100 [2021]), defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review because he did not move to withdraw his guilty plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction on that ground (see People v Cunningham, 213 AD3d 1270, 1271 [4th Dept 2023], lv denied 39 NY3d 1110 [2023]; People v Thompson, 206 AD3d 1628, 1629 [4th Dept 2022], lv denied 38 NY3d 1153 [2022]). In any event, defendant's contention is without merit (see People v Hinkle, 240 AD3d 1428, 1429 [4th Dept 2025]; People v Barnes, 206 AD3d 1713, 1714 [4th Dept 2022], lv denied 38 NY3d 1132 [2022]).

Defendant also contends that the court should have suppressed identification evidence on the ground that the show-up voice identification procedures that were conducted by the police shortly after the incident in question were unduly suggestive. Defendant's unchallenged waiver of the right to appeal forecloses our review of that contention (see People v Reynolds, 236 AD3d 1475, 1475 [4th Dept 2025]; Rosado-Thomas, 181 AD3d at 1167).

Entered: November 21, 2025

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network