People v. Vallance, 49 A.D.3d 917 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Vallance, 49 A.D.3d 917 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Good
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Defendant’s statement that he was not with the victim on a particular day in October 2006 was irrelevant because that date was not the date of the crimes charged in the indictment, and the court had no duty of further inquiry (see People v Vallance, 49 AD3d 917, 917 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 845 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Glynn
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
Our review of the plea colloquy, wherein County Court explained the import of the appeal waiver to defendant and confirmed that defendant understood the separate and distinct right that he was forfeiting, satisfies us that defendant’s waiver was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v Jeske, 55 AD3d 1057, 1057-1058 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 898 [2008]; People v Vallance, 49 AD3d 917, 918 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 845 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Dixon
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
To the extent that defendant separately challenges the voluntariness of his plea, the issue survives his waiver of the right to appeal; his failure to move to withdraw his plea or vacate his judgment of conviction, however, renders this issue unpreserved for our review (see People v Nunez, 56 AD3d 897 , 898 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 928 [2009]; People v Vallance, 49 AD3d 917, 917 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 845 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Cipriani
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
In our view, however, the waiver of the right to appeal is nonetheless valid in light of County Court’s detailed explanation of the right to appeal, the nature of the appellate process and the issues that were encompassed by the waiver, as well as the absence of any indication that the waiver was designed to conceal error or prosecutorial overreaching (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 257 [2006]; People v Holman, 89 NY2d at 878 ; People v Vallance, 49 AD3d 917, 918 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 845 [2008]; People v Boykin, 281 AD2d at 708-709 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Thompkins
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Defendant’s claim that his plea was not knowing or voluntary is unpreserved for our review due to his failure to move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Johnson, 54 AD3d 1133, 1133 [2008]; People v Vallance, 49 AD3d 917, 917 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 845 [2008]; People v Parara, 46 AD3d 936, 937 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Morrishaw
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Although defendant professed at sentencing that he failed to appreciate the nature of the waiver, our review of the record confirms County Court’s finding that defendant’s waiver was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v Vallance, 49 AD3d 917, 918 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 845 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Jeske
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of his guilty plea, although not encompassed by his waiver of appeal, is not preserved for our review given his failure to move to withdraw his guilty plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Vallance, 49 AD3d 917, 917 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 845 [2008]; People v Crudup, 45 AD3d 1111, 1111 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Giovanni
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Under these circumstances, we find both defendant’s guilty plea and her waiver of appeal to have been knowing, voluntary and intelligent (see People v Hogabone, 49 AD3d 1027, 1028 [2008]; People v Vallance, 49 AD3d 917, 918 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 845 [2008]; People v Lewis, 48 AD3d 880, 881 [2008]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Ricky L. Vallance
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Mar 6, 2008.
49 A.D.3d 917
Lahtinen.
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published
Lahtinen, J.

Defendant pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of attempted sexual abuse in the first degree in satisfaction of a three-count indictment charging one count of sexual abuse in the first degree and two counts of sexual abuse in the second degree. Under the terms of the deal, he waived his right to appeal and received a prison sentence of 2 to 4 years. Defendant appeals.

We affirm. Defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of his guilty plea, which survives the waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Lee, 34 AD3d 982, 982 [2006]), was not preserved for our review since he failed to move to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Scott, 31 AD3d 816, 817 [2006]). In any event, review of the plea allocution establishes that it was entered into knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily (see People v Mahar, 12 AD3d 715, 716 [2004]). Defendant’s outburst following the statements of two of the young victims at sentencing, during which he asserted they were lying, does not provide a basis to vacate the plea in the absence of a motion for such relief or a clear protestation of innocence (see People v Wagoner, 30 AD3d 629, 630 [2006]).

[*918] We find no merit in defendant’s argument regarding his waiver of his right to appeal. That right was explained during the allocution as a separate and distinct right which was being waived as part of the plea bargain (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). Moreover, defendant signed a detailed written waiver of that right (see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]; see People v Wright, 34 AD3d 940, 940 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 886 [2007]).

Defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal precludes his challenge to County Court’s suppression ruling, as well as his contention regarding whether he received the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Scott, 31 AD3d at 817), except as to whether his counsel’s conduct impacted the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Crudup, 45 AD3d 1111, 1111 [2007]). And, as to such issue, the record reflects that he received meaningful representation.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.