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. Robert E. Johnson, appellant.
Submitted-December 16, 2009
DECISION & ORDER
(S.C.I. No. 99/08)
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered December 23, 2008, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his plea was involuntary because defense counsel coerced him into pleading guilty is unpreserved for appellate review since he failed to move to vacate his plea or to raise this issue before the County Court (see People v. Bolton, 63 AD3d 1087; People v. Perez, 51 AD3d 1043; People v. Scoca, 38 AD3d 801; People v. Lopez, 34 AD3d 599). In any event, the defendant acknowledged under oath during the plea proceeding that no one had threatened, forced, or coerced him into pleading guilty, and that he had discussed his options with defense counsel and was satisfied with defense counsel's advice (see People v. Perez, 51 AD3d 1043; People v. Beasley, 50 AD3d 697; People v. Gedin, 46 AD3d 701; People v. Lopez, 34 AD3d 599).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, thereby rendering his plea involuntary, involves matter dehors the record, which cannot be reviewed on direct appeal (see People v. Paugam, 57 AD3d 1012; People v. Ali, 55 AD3d 919, 920; People v. Churchill, 52 AD3d 621, 622). Insofar as the claim is reviewable on the record, the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668; People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397, 404; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147).
Since the defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive the sentence that was thereafter imposed, he has no basis now to complain that his sentence was excessive (see People v. Melendez-Smith, 66 AD3d 1042, 1043; People v. Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816, 817).
FISHER, J.P., SANTUCCI, DICKERSON, CHAMBERS and LOTT, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of 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.
Docket No: 2009-00387
Decided: February 02, 2010
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)