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. TIMOTHY INGRAM, 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, inter alia, driving while ability impaired by the combined influence of drugs or of alcohol and any drug or drugs as a class E felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1192[4–a]; 1193[1][c][i] ). Inasmuch as defendant entered a plea of guilty, he “forfeited his present challenge to County Court's Sandoval ruling” (People v. Condes, 23 AD3d 1149, 1150, lv denied 6 NY3d 774; see People v. Johnson, 104 AD3d 705, 706). Contrary to defendant's contention, the plea colloquy demonstrates that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v. Kosty, 122 AD3d 1408, 1408, lv denied 24 NY3d 1220; People v. Estevez–Santos, 114 AD3d 1174, 1175, lv denied 23 NY3d 1019). Although defendant's further contention that his plea was not voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently entered because he gave inconsistent information concerning when he ingested the drugs on the day of the incident survives his waiver of the right to appeal, he failed to preserve that contention for our review (see People v. Davis, 45 AD3d 1357, 1357–1358, lv denied 9 NY3d 1005). In any event, defendant's contention lacks merit. After defendant indicated that he took the drugs in the morning, well before this accident, the court asked him further questions about the drugs he took and when he took them. In response, defendant admitted that he ingested several drugs closer to the time that he operated the vehicle, and he admitted that he was under the influence of those drugs when he drove the vehicle off the road and struck a house (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[4–a] ). Thus, “the court conducted an inquiry that ‘was sufficient to ensure that the plea was voluntary’ “ (People v. Zuliani, 68 AD3d 1731, 1732, lv denied 14 NY3d 894).
Finally, defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses his challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v. Lococo, 92 N.Y.2d 825, 827; People v. Hidalgo, 91 N.Y.2d 733, 737).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
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 13–01617
Decided: May 01, 2015
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
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)