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.
PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Dennis L. JEFFREY, Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.)
Defendant appeals from three judgments convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, attempted criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree. Defendant was sentenced as a second felony offender to an aggregate term of incarceration of 11 to 22 years. Defendant contends that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered and that the sentence is unduly harsh or severe and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
By failing to move to withdraw his guilty plea or vacate the conviction, defendant has failed to preserve for our review his contention that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. In any event, the record establishes that defendant had ample time to confer with counsel before accepting the offer and stated during his plea colloquy that he was voluntarily pleading guilty and had not been threatened or forced to do so. We reject the contention that the court erred in accepting the guilty plea without making further inquiry to assure defendant's intelligent waiver of the defense of agency. The record establishes that the court made appropriate inquiry (see, People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5; People v. Beasley, 25 N.Y.2d 483, 487-488, 307 N.Y.S.2d 39, 255 N.E.2d 239), repeatedly asking defendant if he had obtained a benefit as a result of the cocaine sales and informing defendant that he might have a good defense if he had merely acted as an agent for the buyers.
There is no merit to the contention that the sentence is unduly harsh or severe or that it constitutes cruel or unusual punishment. This is not one of those “rare” cases in which a sentencing statute has been unconstitutionally applied (People v. Broadie, 37 N.Y.2d 100, 119, 371 N.Y.S.2d 471, 332 N.E.2d 338, cert. denied 423 U.S. 950, 96 S.Ct. 372, 46 L.Ed.2d 287; see, People v. Thompson, 83 N.Y.2d 477, 611 N.Y.S.2d 470, 633 N.E.2d 1074; People v. Donovan, 59 N.Y.2d 834, 464 N.Y.S.2d 745, 451 N.E.2d 492, affg. 89 A.D.2d 968, 454 N.Y.S.2d 118; People v. Jones, 39 N.Y.2d 694, 385 N.Y.S.2d 525, 350 N.E.2d 913).
Judgment unanimously affirmed.
MEMORANDUM:
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: May 30, 1997
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)