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. JOSE A. FELIZ, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his guilty plea, of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15[4] ). The challenge by defendant to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution does not survive his waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Capoccetta, 67 AD3d 1395), the validity of which is not challenged by defendant. Additionally, by failing to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, defendant failed to preserve that challenge for our review (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665; People v. Crandall, 66 AD3d 1455). The waiver of the right to appeal also encompasses the challenge by defendant to the severity of the sentence (see People v. Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256).
Defendant further contends that County Court did not conduct a sufficient inquiry during the plea colloquy to determine whether he was under the influence of any drugs or medications. Although that contention concerns the voluntariness of the plea and thus survives defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal, as noted defendant failed to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction and therefore failed to preserve his contention for our review (see People v. Zuliani, 68 AD3d 1731). In any event, defendant's contention lacks merit, inasmuch as the record establishes that the court in fact conducted a sufficient inquiry by asking defendant, “Do you have any problems today, either physically or mentally, that in any way interfere with your understanding of what we're doing here” (see Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d at 666; People v. Wilson, 59 AD3d 975, lv denied 12 NY3d 861). Defendant did not indicate in response thereto that he was unable to understand his rights or the terms of the plea agreement (see People v. Davis, 37 AD3d 1179, lv denied 8 NY3d 983).
Patricia L. Morgan
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: KA 08-00397
Decided: February 11, 2010
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)