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. ATOO V. COOPER, 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 plea of guilty, of attempted assault in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.05[7] ). As the People correctly concede, the record fails to establish that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal is valid because there is no indication that County Court explained “that the waiver of the right to appeal is separate and distinct from the other rights that are forfeited by the plea” (People v. Hernandez, 63 AD3d 1615, 1615, lv denied 13 NY3d 745). Although the contention of defendant that the plea was not voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently entered survives even a valid waiver of the right to appeal, we conclude that defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review because he failed to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v. Secrist, 74 AD3d 1853). This case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation requirement because nothing in the plea colloquy casts significant doubt on defendant's guilt or the voluntariness of the plea (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666).
Defendant further contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based on an alleged conflict of interest with respect to defense counsel assigned to represent him during sentencing. To the extent that defendant's contention is not forfeited by the plea (see People v. Santos, 37 AD3d 1141, lv denied 8 NY3d 950), it is lacking in merit (see generally People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397, 404). Defendant failed to “demonstrate that the conduct of his defense was in fact affected by the operation of the conflict of interest” (People v. Alicea, 61 N.Y.2d 23, 31; see People v. Knight, 280 A.D.2d 937, 939-940). Thus, contrary to the contention of defendant, we conclude that he received meaningful representation (see generally People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147).
Patricia L. Morgan
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: KA 09-01002
Decided: December 30, 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)