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. Derrick GRAY, Also Known as Supreme, Appellant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Cawley Jr., J.), rendered March 9, 2015, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of robbery in the third degree.
Defendant pleaded guilty to a single-count indictment charging him with robbery in the third degree. He was sentenced as a second felony offender, in accordance with the plea agreement, to a prison term of 2 to 4 years. Defendant appeals.
Defendant's challenges to the sufficiency and voluntariness of the plea are unpreserved for our review in the absence of an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665–666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 [1988]; People v. Bailey, 158 A.D.3d 948, 948, 71 N.Y.S.3d 667 [2018] ). Further, the narrow exception to the preservation requirement is inapplicable as the record fails to reflect any statement during the plea colloquy that negated an element of the offense or otherwise called into question the voluntariness of the plea so as to trigger further inquiry by County Court (see People v. Depugh, 158 A.D.3d 945, 945–946, 68 N.Y.S.3d 774 [2018] ). Contrary to defendant's contention, “it was not necessary for [him] to engage in a factual recitation of the elements of the crime and ․ his affirmative responses to the court's questions were sufficient to establish his guilt” (People v. Griffith, 136 A.D.3d 1114, 1115, 25 N.Y.S.3d 400 [2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1184, 52 N.Y.S.3d 711, 75 N.E.3d 103 [2017] ).
We find defendant's challenge to the severity of the sentence to be without merit. The agreed-upon sentence was not harsh or excessive inasmuch as it was the statutory minimum prison term for a second felony offender convicted of a class D felony (see Penal Law § 70.06[2], [3][d]; People v. Horton, 140 A.D.3d 1525, 1525, 33 N.Y.S.3d 777 [2016] ). Defendant's remaining contentions raised in his pro se brief have been reviewed and are without merit.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Pritzker, J.
Garry, P.J., McCarthy, Devine and Aarons, 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.
Docket No: 108474
Decided: June 14, 2018
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)