Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Vincent LOWMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgments, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ira R. Globerman, J.), rendered April 8, 2003, as amended May 20, 2003, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree (three counts) and sexual abuse in the first degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 3 1/212 to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant, who received an enhanced sentence in the instant matter for violating the no-postplea-arrest condition of his guilty pleas, claims to have received ineffective assistance of counsel in two respects. First, he claims that the attorney representing him in Criminal Court on the new arrest was ineffective in permitting defendant to plead guilty. Second, he claims that the attorney representing him on the instant matter should have moved to withdraw the pleas. Both claims are unreviewable on this appeal because they involve matters outside the present record. To the extent the existing record permits review, it establishes that defendant received effective assistance in both cases under the state and federal standards (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713-714, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 [1998]; see People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397, 404, 633 N.Y.S.2d 270, 657 N.E.2d 265 [1995]; see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 [1984] ). There is no indication that the misdemeanor plea was ill-advised, or that there was any legitimate ground for a plea withdrawal motion in the instant matter. We note that the sentence enhancement for violation of the no-new-arrest condition did not necessarily require a conviction in the new case (see People v. Outley, 80 N.Y.2d 702, 594 N.Y.S.2d 683, 610 N.E.2d 356 [1993] ).
Defendant's waiver of his right to appeal forecloses review of his excessive sentence claim, which, in any event, is without merit.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 08, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)