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. Sheppard ADEGHE, also known as Shepard Adeghe, also known as “Shep,” also known as “Cheff,” Appellant.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Barry E. Warhit, J.), rendered October 18, 2018, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent because it was allegedly coerced by the County Court's participation in the plea negotiations is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant did not move to vacate his plea or otherwise raise this issue before the court (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5; People v. McCracken, 138 A.D.3d 1147, 28 N.Y.S.3d 890). In any event, the defendant's claim is belied by the record, which reveals that the defendant acknowledged under oath that he was not forced, threatened, or coerced to plead guilty (see People v. Monroe, 174 A.D.3d 649, 650, 104 N.Y.S.3d 696; People v. McCracken, 138 A.D.3d 1147, 28 N.Y.S.3d 890; People v. Tavares, 103 A.D.3d 820, 821, 962 N.Y.S.2d 196). Further, the fact that the court was involved in the plea negotiations, without more, does not establish that the plea was coerced (see People v. McCracken, 138 A.D.3d 1147, 28 N.Y.S.3d 890; People v. Scannell, 134 A.D.3d 738, 19 N.Y.S.3d 772).
The record demonstrates that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v. Sanders, 25 N.Y.3d 337, 339–342, 12 N.Y.S.3d 593, 34 N.E.3d 344; People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256–257, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145). The defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v. Hidalgo, 91 N.Y.2d 733, 675 N.Y.S.2d 327, 698 N.E.2d 46).
SCHEINKMAN, P.J., DUFFY, CONNOLLY and CHRISTOPHER, 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: 2018–14950
Decided: July 22, 2020
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)