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. Donnell THOMAS, also known as Raymond Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John P. Collins, J.), rendered September 6, 2007, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4 to 8 years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's unpreserved challenges to the validity of his plea do not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 [1988] ), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject them on the merits. The record establishes that defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily pleaded guilty (see People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 543, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646 [1993] ). Defendant pleaded guilty twice in this case, and the second plea differed from the first only to the extent of reducing the degree of the crime for defendant's benefit, thereby qualifying him for a more lenient sentence than the one to which he had originally agreed. The second plea proceeding validly incorporated by reference the full allocution, including defendant's rights under Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 [1969], that had been conducted at the first plea proceeding.
Defendant's claim that the court should have conducted an inquiry into the circumstances of his failure to complete a drug program is also unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
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: June 30, 2009
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)