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, etc., respondent, v. George PHILIPS, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant, by permission, from an order of the County Court, Nassau County (Belfi, J.), entered January 31, 2003, which denied, without a hearing, his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate a judgment of conviction of the same court rendered April 10, 2000, convicting him of rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree (two counts), and attempted sodomy in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court properly denied, without a hearing, those branches of his motion which were to vacate his judgment of conviction on the ground that the People did not disclose various statements made by witnesses (see People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, 213 N.Y.S.2d 448, 173 N.E.2d 881, cert. denied 368 U.S. 866, 82 S.Ct. 117, 7 L.Ed.2d 64; Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215).
By pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited his right to seek review of any alleged Rosario or Brady violation (see People v. Land, 304 A.D.2d 774, 757 N.Y.S.2d 779; People v. Knickerbocker, 230 A.D.2d 753, 646 N.Y.S.2d 171; People v. Thompson, 174 A.D.2d 702, 704, 571 N.Y.S.2d 553). We reject the defendant's contention that, since he did not waive his right to appeal, the Brady claim is subject to review (cf. People v. Mack, 53 N.Y.2d 803, 806, 439 N.Y.S.2d 912, 422 N.E.2d 572; People v. Land, supra ). We also reject the defendant's contention that he did not forfeit his Brady claim because he entered into a Serrano/alford plea and thus did not admit guilt (cf. people v. green, 75 N.Y.2d 902, 904-905, 554 N.Y.S.2d 821, 553 N.E.2d 1331, cert. denied 498 U.S. 860, 111 S.Ct. 165, 112 L.Ed.2d 130; People v. Thompson, supra at 704, 571 N.Y.S.2d 553).
The County Court properly rejected the defendant's claims relating to alleged newly-discovered evidence. CPL 440.10(1)(g) is limited, by its very terms, to evidence discovered “since the entry of a judgment based upon a verdict of guilty after trial.” The defendant pleaded guilty, so the statute does not apply here (see People v. Sides, 242 A.D.2d 750, 751, 661 N.Y.S.2d 863).
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: June 20, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)