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. Juan NADAL, Appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.), rendered March 28, 1995, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
In accordance with the plea agreement, the defendant was sentenced as a second felony offender based upon a 1990 conviction. At sentencing, the defendant claimed that he should not be sentenced as a second felony offender because he was denied youthful offender treatment on his 1990 conviction. On appeal, the defendant claims that he was denied effective assistance of counsel on his 1990 conviction because his counsel at that time did not further investigate whether he was eligible for youthful offender treatment.
The defendant's claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel on his 1990 conviction was not raised before the trial court, and therefore, is not preserved for appellate review (see, People v. Early, 173 A.D.2d 884, 885, 569 N.Y.S.2d 756). Moreover, the defendant's underlying claims regarding his 1990 conviction involve matters which are dehors the record, and therefore are not properly before this court on appeal (see, People v. Grazzette, 211 A.D.2d 822, 621 N.Y.S.2d 917; People v. Dyson, 200 A.D.2d 756, 608 N.Y.S.2d 864).
Further, the defendant's claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel on the instant conviction is without merit. Counsel's failure to challenge the constitutionality of his 1990 conviction did not deprive the defendant of meaningful representation, as the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to challenge the constitutionality of the 1990 conviction, as well as the sentence itself, as part of the plea agreement (see, People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 7, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022; People v. Conti, 149 A.D.2d 607, 608, 540 N.Y.S.2d 685). We find that counsel provided received meaningful representation (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
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 16, 1997
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)