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. Curtis S. Shell, appellant.
Submitted-May 5, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.), rendered January 9, 2007, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Since the defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea prior to sentencing, his contention on appeal that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered has not been preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Antoine, 59 AD3d 560; People v. Castillo-Cordero, 54 AD3d 1054; People v. Bevins, 27 AD3d 572; People v. Martin, 7 AD3d 640). In any event, the record demonstrates that his plea of guilty was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made (see People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 543; People v. Callahan, 80 N.Y.2d 273, 283; People v. Moissett, 76 N.Y.2d 909, 910-911; People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 16; People v. Nixon, 21 N.Y.2d 338, cert denied sub nom. Robinson v New York, 393 U.S. 1067). To the extent that the defendant's contentions regarding any alleged ineffective assistance of counsel rest on matter outside the record, they are not reviewable on direct appeal (see People v. Ali, 55 AD3d 919; People v. Drago, 50 AD3d 920). Insofar as the contentions are reviewable, we find that the defendant received meaningful representation (see People v. Drago, 50 AD3d 920; People v. Brooks, 36 AD3d 929, 930; People v. Grimes, 35 AD3d 882, 883).
Since the defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive the sentence which was thereafter actually imposed, he has no basis now to complain that the sentence was excessive (see People v. De Alvarez, 59 AD3d 732; People v. Fanelli, 8 AD3d 296; People v. Mejia, 6 AD3d 630, 631; People v. Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816). In any event, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
RIVERA, J.P., FLORIO, 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: 2007-00859 (Ind.No. 299 /06)
Decided: May 18, 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)