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. Luis VASQUEZ, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.), rendered August 10, 2005, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contentions that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, or intelligently made, and that he did not receive the effective assistance of trial counsel, are unpreserved for appellate review since he did not move to withdraw his plea on these grounds prior to sentencing (see People v. Clarke, 93 N.Y.2d 904, 906, 690 N.Y.S.2d 501, 712 N.E.2d 668; People v. Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636, 637, 467 N.Y.S.2d 355, 454 N.E.2d 938; People v. Wilson, 37 A.D.3d 744, 828 N.Y.S.2d 910; People v. Lopez, 34 A.D.3d 599, 824 N.Y.S.2d 173; People v. Cumba, 32 A.D.3d 444, 820 N.Y.S.2d 304), or based partly on matter dehors the record which cannot be reviewed on direct appeal (see People v. Wilson, supra; People v. Reina, 35 A.D.3d 509, 826 N.Y.S.2d 143). In any event, the defendant's plea of guilty was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered (see People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 17, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170). Moreover, to the extent that the defendant's claim that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance is reviewable on direct appeal, defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 714, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).
The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his claims that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v. Ramos, 7 N.Y.3d 737, 738, 819 N.Y.S.2d 853, 853 N.E.2d 222; People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 253, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145; People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 11, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022), and that the County Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying him youthful offender status (see People v. Valentin, 15 A.D.3d 424, 788 N.Y.S.2d 864; People v. Friedlander, 11 A.D.3d 556, 782 N.Y.S.2d 645; People v. Lofton, 6 A.D.3d 629, 629-630, 774 N.Y.S.2d 802).
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: May 29, 2007
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)