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. Arvin COLLINS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J. on omnibus motion; Lawrence Tonetti, J. at hearing, plea and sentence), rendered April 18, 2001, convicting defendant of murder in the second degree (two counts) and attempted murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.
Since defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction, his challenge to the sufficiency of the plea allocution is unpreserved, and this case does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement set forth in People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 (1988). Were we to review this claim, we would find that the record of the plea allocution establishes that defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered the plea, that both of the psychiatrists who examined defendant pursuant to CPL article 730 found him fit to proceed, and that defendant gave no indication of mental impairment during the allocution (see People v. Taylor, 292 A.D.2d 637, 741 N.Y.S.2d 544 [2002] ). Furthermore, the record establishes that defendant received effective assistance of counsel. In view of the examination reports, which found that defendant was malingering, and counsel's stated ability to communicate with defendant, we conclude that counsel made a sound decision to forgo a competency hearing or the appointment of a defense psychiatrist (see id.).
Defendant's remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief, are foreclosed by his valid waiver of the right to appeal. In any event, were we to find that defendant did not make a valid waiver of his right to appeal, we would reject these claims.
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Decided: October 05, 2004
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)