From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Ovalle

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec 26, 2013
112 A.D.3d 971 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-12-26

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Warren A. OVALLE, appellant.

Mark A. Diamond, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Guy Arcidiacono of counsel), for respondent.



Mark A. Diamond, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Guy Arcidiacono of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., REINALDO E. RIVERA, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, and CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JJ.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Hudson, J.), rendered January 7, 2010, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record demonstrates that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal ( see 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 his right to appeal precludes review of his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution ( see People v. Knapp, 108 A.D.3d 641, 642, 968 N.Y.S.2d 381; People v. Devodier, 102 A.D.3d 884, 958 N.Y.S.2d 220; People v. Crews, 92 A.D.3d 795, 938 N.Y.S.2d 475; People v. Hardee, 84 A.D.3d 835, 922 N.Y.S.2d 785).

The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw his plea on this ground prior to the imposition of sentence ( see People v. Clarke, 93 N.Y.2d 904, 906, 690 N.Y.S.2d 501, 712 N.E.2d 668; People v. Devodier, 102 A.D.3d 884, 958 N.Y.S.2d 220; People v. Andrea, 98 A.D.3d 627, 949 N.Y.S.2d 654). Furthermore, the “rare case” exception to the preservation rule does not apply here, since the defendant's plea allocution did not cast significant doubt upon his guilt, negate an essential element of the crime, or call into question the voluntariness of the plea (People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5).


Summaries of

People v. Ovalle

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec 26, 2013
112 A.D.3d 971 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

People v. Ovalle

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Warren A. OVALLE, appellant.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Dec 26, 2013

Citations

112 A.D.3d 971 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
112 A.D.3d 971
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 8666

Citing Cases

People v. Telfair

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.The defendant's challenges to the voluntariness of his plea of guilty…

People v. Telfair

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. The defendant's challenges to the voluntariness of his plea of guilty…