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. QUENTIN J. HICKS, 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 conspiracy in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 105.15). Contrary to defendant's contention, the waiver of the right to appeal was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered (see People v. Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256; People v. Rios, 93 AD3d 1349, 1349, lv denied 19 NY3d 966; People v. Wackwitz, 93 AD3d 1220, 1220–1221, lv denied 19 NY3d 868). Defendant further contends that the plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent because he did not admit that he intended to kill the victim. That contention is actually a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution, which is encompassed by the valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Schmidli, 118 AD3d 1491, 1491, lv denied 23 NY3d 1067; People v. Gardner, 101 AD3d 1634, 1634; Rios, 93 AD3d at 1349). In any event, defendant also failed to preserve his contention for our review by failing to move to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction on that ground (see People v. Lugg, 108 AD3d 1074, 1075; Gardner, 101 AD3d at 1634).
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court improperly delegated its duty to conduct the plea allocution to defense counsel (see People v. Swontek [appeal No. 1], 289 A.D.2d 989, 989, lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 762). In any event, that contention and defendant's related contention that his right to counsel was violated are without merit (see People v. Rossborough, 105 AD3d 1332, 1334, lv denied 21 NY3d 1045). Finally, the waiver of the right to appeal encompasses defendant's contention that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe (see 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 12–01834
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)