People v. Lewis, 39 A.D.3d 1025 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Lewis, 39 A.D.3d 1025 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
18 citation events (18 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Tucker (nyappdiv, 2023-12-07)
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Tucker
N.Y. App. Div. · 2023 · confidence medium
Thus, the court did [*3]not err in denying that request ( see People v Edwards , 95 NY2d at 492-494 ; People v Darden , 34 NY2d 177, 181 [1974]; People v Brown , 167 AD3d at 1333; People v Anderson , 104 AD3d 968 , 971 [3d Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1013 [2013]; People v Lewis , 39 AD3d 1025, 1026 [3d Dept 2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Tucker
N.Y. App. Div. · 2023 · confidence medium
Thus, the court did [*3]not err in denying that request ( see People v Edwards , 95 NY2d at 492-494 ; People v Darden , 34 NY2d 177, 181 [1974]; People v Brown , 167 AD3d at 1333; People v Anderson , 104 AD3d 968 , 971 [3d Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1013 [2013]; People v Lewis , 39 AD3d 1025, 1026 [3d Dept 2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Richardson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
Rather, the court expressly reserved decision on the request until after the suppression hearing, subject to defendant's renewal, which was never made ( see generally People v Lewis , 39 AD3d 1025, 1026 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. White
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Upon review of the record before us, we find that defendant did not effect a valid waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Lewis, 39 AD3d 1025, 1025 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. White
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Upon review of the record before us, we find that defendant did not effect a valid waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Lewis, 39 AD3d 1025, 1025 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Leip
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Initially, we find that, based upon this record, defendant did not make a valid waiver of her right to appeal (see People v Lewis, 39 AD3d 1025, 1025 [2007]; People v Cain, 29 AD3d 1157, 1157 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. McMath
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
The record establishes that defense counsel negotiated a favorable plea bargain and otherwise provided meaningful representation (see People v Lewis, 39 AD3d 1025, 1026 [2007]; see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Walker
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Thus, the record reflects that defendant’s plea was voluntary, knowing and intelligent (see People v Longshore, 86 NY2d 851, 852 [1995]; People v Lewis, 39 AD3d 1025, 1025 [2007]; People v Rowland, 14 AD3d 886, 887 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. White
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Initially, in light of County Court’s failure to adequately distinguish the right to appeal from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty, defendant’s oral waiver of his right to appeal was invalid (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006] ; People v Lewis, 39 AD3d 1025, 1025 [2007]; People v Guthinger, 36 AD3d 1075, 1076 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 923 [2007] ; People v Cain, 29 AD3d 1157, 1157 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Perez
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Thus, defendant’s oral waiver of his right to appeal was invalid and we will address his suppression argument (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Lewis, 39 AD3d 1025, 1025 [2007]; People v Cain, 29 AD3d 1157, 1157 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Nascimento
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Initially, we note that defendant’s claim that he did not enter his guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily has not been preserved for our review inasmuch as defendant never moved to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (s ee People v Lopez, 40 AD3d 1276, 1276 [2007]; People v Lewis, 39 AD3d 1025, 1025-1026 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Ellis
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
We begin by noting that defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Lewis, 39 AD3d 1025, 1025-1026 [2007]; People v Threatt, 16 AD3d 706, 707 [2005]), thus rendering defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of his plea unpreserved for our review.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Edwards
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
Under these circumstances, we conclude that defendant entered his plea voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently (see People v Means, 35 AD3d 975, 976 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 948 [2007]) and, noting the favorable plea agreement which reduced his sentence exposure, received meaningful representation (see People v Lewis, 39 AD3d 1025, 1026 [2007]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Garcia-Toro
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
For these reasons, we would have found the plea voluntary (see People v Lewis, 39 AD3d 1025, 1026 [2007]; People v Thread, 16 AD3d 706, 707 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Ramirez
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
People v Lewis, 39 AD3d 1025, 1025-1026 [2007]; People v Smith, supra at 975-976 ), we conclude that the narrow exception to the preservation requirement is applicable inasmuch as “defendant’s recitation of the facts underlying the crime . . . clearly cast[ ] significant doubt upon [his] guilt [and] . . . call[ed] into question the voluntariness of the plea” (People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; see People v Ocasio, 265 AD2d 675, 676-677 [1999]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Morton
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
First, the Judicial Hearing Officer is vested with limited powers (see CPL 255.20 [4]; see generally People v Scalza, 76 NY2d 604 [1990]), and defendant pleaded guilty while the motion was still pending, thus waiving the right to appellate review (see People v Lewis, 39 AD3d 1025, 1026 [2007]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Alexis Lewis
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Apr 19, 2007.
39 A.D.3d 1025
Spain.
Cited by 16 opinions  |  Published
Spain, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Breslin, J.), rendered July 20, 2002, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree.

In full satisfaction of a five-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree. A waiver of the right to appeal was recited as a term of the plea, although there is no written waiver. Pursuant to the plea agreement, defendant was sentenced to 6V2 years to life in prison. Previously, this Court rejected an Anders brief (29 AD3d 1076 [2006]) and new counsel was assigned, and we now affirm.

Initially, upon our review of the record, we find that defendant’s oral waiver of appeal is not enforceable as the plea minutes do not adequately establish that defendant understood that “the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty” (People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; see People v Guthinger, 36 AD3d 1075, 1076 [2007]; People v Trotter, 28 AD3d 947, 948-949 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 764 [2006]; People v Barton, 28 AD3d 943, 944 [2006]). Also, the record does not reflect that defense counsel explained the appeal waiver to defendant or that defendant expressly waived that right (see People v Edwards, 37 AD3d 871 [2007]; People v Crowley, 34 AD3d 866, 866-867 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 924 [2006]; People v Phillips, 28 AD3d 939, 939 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 761 [2006]; cf. People v Nason, 31 AD3d 818, 819 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 869 [2006]).

Defendant’s contention that her guilty plea was not voluntar[*1026] ily, knowingly and intelligently entered has not been preserved for our review, given that she never moved to withdraw her plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v McEnteggart, 26 AD3d 643, 643 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 759 [2006]; People v Bennett, 24 AD3d 975, 975 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 831 [2006]), and her challenge to the effectiveness of her counsel is similarly not preserved (see People v Coles, 13 AD3d 665, 666 [2004]). In any event, were we to consider these issues, we would find that the plea minutes reflect that defendant’s plea was knowing, voluntary and intelligent. Defendant was advised of her rights and stated on the record that she understood the consequences of the plea, she had ample time to consult with her attorney, and she was satisfied with her attorney’s representation (see People v Robetoy, 21 AD3d 1220, 1220 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 758 [2005] ; People v Threatt, 16 AD3d 706, 707 [2005]; People v Hill, 11 AD3d 817, 818 [2004]). Moreover, in negotiating a favorable plea agreement and throughout the proceedings, counsel provided defendant with meaningful representation (see People v Cain, 29 AD3d 1032, 1033 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 786 [2006] ).

Reviewing defendant’s remaining contentions, she inaccurately argues that County Court erred in denying her request for a Darden hearing. In fact, the court in its written decision expressly reserved decision on the request until after the suppression hearing (subject to defendant’s renewed request) and defendant never made any renewed request before pleading guilty. Thus, by pleading guilty while the motion was still pending, defendant waived appellate review of that issue (see People v Atwood, 9 AD3d 512, 513 [2004]; People v Deliz, 172 AD2d 877, 878-879 [1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 921 [1991]; cf. CPL 470.05 [2]).

In any event, at the suppression hearing, the identity of the informant whose statement supported the warrant application was revealed, thereby obviating the need for an in camera hearing to establish the existence of the informant or to protect her identity (see People v Edwards, 95 NY2d 486, 492-494 [2000]; People v Serrano, 93 NY2d 73, 77 [1999]). Further, the hearing testimony established that the warrant application sufficiently demonstrated the reliability and basis of knowledge of the informant (see People v Griminger, 71 NY2d 635, 639 [1988]), as it was supported by her sworn statement to police—containing admissions against her penal interest (see People v Walker, 27 AD3d 899, 900 [2006]), lv denied 7 NY3d 764 [2006])—which was corroborated by information gained earlier from two other confidential informants and confirmed by police investigation[*1027] (see People v Collins, 35 AD3d 896, 897-898 [2006]; see also People v Bahr, 35 AD3d 909 [2006]). Thus, probable cause for the warrant was established (see People v Alston, 1 AD3d 627, 628-629, [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 594 [2004]; see also People v Rodriguez, 52 NY2d 483, 489-490 [1981]).

Finally, finding no abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances to warrant modification of the bargained-for sentence, we decline to disturb it in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [b]; see also People v Rutledge, 282 AD2d 870 [2001]). Defendant’s contentions regarding the amendments to the Rockefeller drug laws as they pertain to class A-II felons are appropriately made to the sentencing court (see Penal Law § 70.71; see also People v Syrell, 31 AD3d 881, 882 [2006]).

Mercure, J.P., Carpinello, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.