Opinion
2014-05-9
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Edward M. JENKINS, Defendant–Appellant.
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Robert L. Kemp of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Edward M. Jenkins, Defendant–Appellant pro se.
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Robert L. Kemp of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Edward M. Jenkins, Defendant–Appellant pro se.
Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (David Panepinto of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, and WHALEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a plea of guilty of one count of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15[4] ) and two counts of robbery in the third degree (§ 160.05), defendant contends that County Court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Defendant's contention “that his plea was involuntary because he was coerced by defense counsel is belied by [defendant's] responses to the court's questions during the plea colloquy, indicating that he was pleading guilty voluntarily and that no threats or promises had induced the plea” ( People v. Toliver, 82 A.D.3d 1581, 1582, 919 N.Y.S.2d 256,lv. denied17 N.Y.3d 802, 929 N.Y.S.2d 110, 952 N.E.2d 1105,reconsideration denied 17 N.Y.3d 862, 932 N.Y.S.2d 27, 956 N.E.2d 808;see People v. Ivey, 98 A.D.3d 1230, 1231, 951 N.Y.S.2d 279,lv. denied20 N.Y.3d 1012, 960 N.Y.S.2d 355, 984 N.E.2d 330;People v. Irvine, 42 A.D.3d 949, 949, 838 N.Y.S.2d 765,lv. denied9 N.Y.3d 962, 848 N.Y.S.2d 31, 878 N.E.2d 615). “Furthermore, the fact that defendant was required ‘to accept or reject the plea offer within a short time period does not amount to coercion’ ” ( Irvine, 42 A.D.3d at 949, 838 N.Y.S.2d 765;see People v. Mason, 56 A.D.3d 1201, 1202, 867 N.Y.S.2d 609,lv. denied11 N.Y.3d 927, 874 N.Y.S.2d 12, 902 N.E.2d 446;People v. Thomas, 39 A.D.3d 1197, 1198–1199, 834 N.Y.S.2d 814,lv. denied9 N.Y.3d 869, 840 N.Y.S.2d 899, 872 N.E.2d 1205). Although defendant also contended in support of his motion that he was innocent of the crimes, he “failed to submit any new evidence to substantiate his conclusory assertions of innocence” ( People v. Morris, 78 A.D.3d 1613, 1614, 910 N.Y.S.2d 712,lv. denied17 N.Y.3d 798, 929 N.Y.S.2d 106, 952 N.E.2d 1101;see People v. Diaz, 286 A.D.2d 980, 980, 730 N.Y.S.2d 763,lv. denied97 N.Y.2d 681, 738 N.Y.S.2d 296, 764 N.E.2d 400), and he admitted all of the essential elements of the crimes during the plea allocution ( see People v. Hobby, 83 A.D.3d 1536, 1536, 921 N.Y.S.2d 580,lv. denied17 N.Y.3d 859, 932 N.Y.S.2d 24, 956 N.E.2d 805;People v. Sparcino, 78 A.D.3d 1508, 1509, 911 N.Y.S.2d 523,lv. denied16 N.Y.3d 746, 917 N.Y.S.2d 628, 942 N.E.2d 1053). Therefore, based on the record before us, we see no reason to disturb the court's denial of defendant's motion ( see People v. Stephens, 6 A.D.3d 1123, 1124–1125, 775 N.Y.S.2d 684,lv. denied3 N.Y.3d 663, 782 N.Y.S.2d 705, 816 N.E.2d 578,reconsideration denied3 N.Y.3d 682, 784 N.Y.S.2d 20, 817 N.E.2d 838).
Contrary to defendant's contention, the record establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to appeal ( see People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 264–265, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645;People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145), and that valid waiver encompasses his contentions, raised in his main and pro se supplemental briefs, that the court erred in refusing to suppress identification testimony and in refusing to hold a Wade hearing on the superseded indictment ( see People v. Kemp, 94 N.Y.2d 831, 833, 703 N.Y.S.2d 59, 724 N.E.2d 754;People v. Caraballo, 59 A.D.3d 971, 971, 872 N.Y.S.2d 315,lv. denied12 N.Y.3d 852, 881 N.Y.S.2d 663, 909 N.E.2d 586;People v. McMillon, 31 A.D.3d 1197, 1197, 817 N.Y.S.2d 566), as well as the final contention in his pro se supplemental brief that he was denied his statutory right to a speedy trial ( see People v. Badding, 107 A.D.3d 1453, 1454, 965 N.Y.S.2d 908;People v. Paduano, 84 A.D.3d 1730, 1730, 922 N.Y.S.2d 726;People v. Barnes, 41 A.D.3d 1309, 1309–1310, 837 N.Y.S.2d 817,lv. denied9 N.Y.3d 920, 844 N.Y.S.2d 175, 875 N.E.2d 894).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.