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. Tamara D. CLARK, Defendant-Appellant.
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her, upon a plea of guilty, of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 220.39[1] ). We reject the contention of defendant in her main brief that County Court abused its discretion in denying her motion to withdraw her guilty plea, as well as the contention in her pro se supplemental brief that the plea was involuntarily entered. There is no “ ‘evidence of innocence, fraud, or mistake in inducing the plea’ ” (People v. Pillich, 48 A.D.3d 1061, 849 N.Y.S.2d 817, lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 793, 866 N.Y.S.2d 619, 896 N.E.2d 105; see CPL 220.60[3] ), nor is there any indication in the record before us that the plea was not voluntarily entered (see People v. Seeber, 4 N.Y.3d 780, 781-782, 793 N.Y.S.2d 826, 826 N.E.2d 797; People v. Phillips, 56 A.D.3d 1163, 867 N.Y.S.2d 324). Defendant failed to preserve for our review her contention in her main brief that the sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment (see People v. Santilli, 16 A.D.3d 1056, 1057, 790 N.Y.S.2d 898), as well as the contention in her pro se supplemental brief that the court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence when she failed to appear at sentencing (see People v. Brooks, 59 A.D.3d 999, 872 N.Y.S.2d 354). Those contentions are without merit in any event. The sentence does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment (see People v. Holmquist, 5 A.D.3d 1041, 773 N.Y.S.2d 682, lv. denied 2 N.Y.3d 800, 781 N.Y.S.2d 300, 814 N.E.2d 472; see generally People v. Thompson, 83 N.Y.2d 477, 482-483, 611 N.Y.S.2d 470, 633 N.E.2d 1074), and the court warned defendant that, if she failed to appear at sentencing, the court would no longer be bound by the agreed-upon sentence and would instead impose the maximum sentence allowed (see People v. Winship, 26 A.D.3d 768, 809 N.Y.S.2d 722, lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 899, 817 N.Y.S.2d 634, 850 N.E.2d 681; see generally People v. Bush, 30 A.D.3d 1078, 815 N.Y.S.2d 864, lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 785, 821 N.Y.S.2d 815, 854 N.E.2d 1279).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
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: April 24, 2009
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)