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. Jeffrey S. WACKWITZ, Sr., Defendant–Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.)
In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of grand larceny in the third degree (Penal Law former § 155.35) and scheme to defraud in the first degree (§ 190.65[1][b] ). In appeal No. 2, he appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon the same plea of guilty, of burglary in the third degree (§ 140.20). Contrary to the contention of defendant in both appeals, his waiver of the right to appeal was valid. County Court “expressly ascertained from defendant that, as a condition of the plea, he was agreeing to waive his right to appeal, and the court did not treat that right as one of the rights automatically forfeited by a guilty plea” (People v. Bilus, 44 A.D.3d 325, 326, 843 N.Y.S.2d 32, lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 1031, 852 N.Y.S.2d 16, 881 N.E.2d 1203; see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256–257, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145; cf. People v. Moyett, 7 N.Y.3d 892, 826 N.Y.S.2d 597, 860 N.E.2d 59). The valid waiver encompasses defendant's challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution (see People v. Jackson, 50 A.D.3d 1615, 1615–1616, 856 N.Y.S.2d 432, lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 960, 863 N.Y.S.2d 144, 893 N.E.2d 450). In any event, defendant failed to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgments of conviction on that ground and thus failed to preserve that challenge for our review (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5). This case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation requirement set forth in Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d at 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's statements during the colloquy called into question the voluntariness of the plea and thus that the preservation exception applies, we conclude upon our review of the record that the court made sufficient further inquiry to ensure that defendant's plea was knowing and voluntary (see id.).
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: March 16, 2012
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)