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. DYLLAN M. COATS, 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 grand larceny in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 155.30[4] ), criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (§ 165.45[2] ), and burglary in the second degree
(§ 140.25[2] ). We agree with defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal is not valid. “Although the drug court contract [signed by defendant] contained a written waiver of the right to appeal, County Court did not conduct any colloquy concerning that waiver at the plea proceeding ․, and we conclude that the contract alone is insufficient to establish a valid waiver” (People v. Mason, 144 AD3d 1589, 1589 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1186 [2017]; see People v. Sampson, 149 AD3d 1486, 1487 [4th Dept 2017] ).
Nevertheless, we affirm. Defendant's contention that counts of the superior court information were improperly joined in a single accusatory instrument does not survive his plea of guilty inasmuch as “[a] guilty plea generally results in a forfeiture of the right to appellate review of any nonjurisdictional defects in the proceedings” (People v. Fernandez, 67 N.Y.2d 686, 688 [1986] ). Defendant's contention that his challenge with respect to improper joinder survives his plea of guilty because the superior court information was jurisdictionally defective is without merit inasmuch as each count therein charges an “offense for which the defendant was held for action of a grand jury”(CPL 195.20; cf. People v. Pierce, 14 NY3d 564, 574 [2010] ).
The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
Mark W. Bennett
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 16–01944
Decided: February 09, 2018
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)