From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hughes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 22, 2004
3 A.D.3d 736 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

12274.

Decided and Entered: January 22, 2004.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Rosen, J.), rendered September 14, 1999, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

Eugene P. Devine, Public Defender, Albany (Theresa M. Suozzi of counsel), for appellant.

Paul A. Clyne, District Attorney, Albany (Christopher D. Horn of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Carpinello, Rose and Kane, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


Defendant was charged in an indictment with several crimes after he and a codefendant allegedly entered the home of the victim, threatened him with a handgun and took $500. Thereafter, he pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree in satisfaction of all charges and waived his right to appeal. In accordance with the plea agreement, he was sentenced to nine years in prison to be followed by a 2½-year period of postrelease supervision.

Defendant now appeals contending, among other things, that he was coerced into entering the plea and, therefore, his waiver of appeal should not be enforced. Defendant, however, did not move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction, a necessary prerequisite to preserving this claim (see People v. Urbina, A.D.2d 766 N.Y.S.2d 640, 640; People v. Smith, 305 A.D.2d 853, 854, lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 624). In any event, even if we were to consider it, the record belies defendant's assertions of coercion and duress. County Court thoroughly explained to defendant all of the rights affected by a plea of guilty, including the waiver of the right to appeal. Defendant responded that he understood and stated that he was not pressured or forced into entering a plea. He then admitted that, on the date in question, he possessed a loaded handgun and intended to use it on the victim. Under the circumstances presented, we find that the plea and waiver were knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered (see People v. Anderson, 304 A.D.2d 975, 975-976, lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 578; People v. De Berardinis, 304 A.D.2d 914, 915, lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 580).

Given defendant's voluntary waiver of the right to appeal, he has waived his remaining claims, including his challenge to the sentence as harsh and excessive (see People v. Hidalgo, 91 N.Y.2d 733, 737; People v. De Berardinis, supra at 916).

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Carpinello and Kane, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Hughes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 22, 2004
3 A.D.3d 736 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

People v. Hughes

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JAMES HUGHES, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jan 22, 2004

Citations

3 A.D.3d 736 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
770 N.Y.S.2d 666

Citing Cases

People v. Zodarecky

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.…

People v. Williams

Defendant appeals, and we affirm. Initially, defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his plea is…