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. Kareem EDWARDS, Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Teresi, J.), rendered November 17, 2005 in Albany County, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.
Defendant waived indictment and pleaded guilty to a superior court information charging him with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree. Supreme Court thereafter sentenced him in accordance with the plea agreement as a predicate felon to 1 1/212 years in prison followed by two years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Defendant's assertions that his guilty plea was involuntary and he was denied the effective assistance of counsel are unpreserved for our review in light of his failure to move to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v. Myricks, 36 A.D.3d 1006, 1006, 826 N.Y.S.2d 520 [2007], lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 948, 836 N.Y.S.2d 559, 868 N.E.2d 242 [2007] ). In any event, defendant's claims are without merit. During the plea colloquy, defendant indicated that he had sufficient time to speak with his attorney and was satisfied with his services. He also acknowledged that he understood his rights and the ramifications of pleading guilty and freely admitted the facts underlying the crime. Under these circumstances, we conclude that defendant entered his plea voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently (see People v. Means, 35 A.D.3d 975, 976, 824 N.Y.S.2d 821 [2006], lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 948, 836 N.Y.S.2d 558, 868 N.E.2d 241 [2007] ) and, noting the favorable plea agreement which reduced his sentence exposure, received meaningful representation (see People v. Lewis, 39 A.D.3d 1025, 1026, 833 N.Y.S.2d 757 [2007] ).
Finally, we have considered defendant's contention that his sentence was harsh and excessive, yet find it to be unavailing. Nothing in the record convinces us that Supreme Court abused its discretion nor are there any extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the negotiated sentence (see People v. Qasem, 39 A.D.3d 960, 961, 835 N.Y.S.2d 465 [2007] ).
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
KANE, J.
CARDONA, P.J., MERCURE, CREW III and CARPINELLO, JJ., concur.
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: September 20, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third 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)