People v. Williams, 84 A.D.3d 1417 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Williams, 84 A.D.3d 1417 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases · …neither his eligibility for the shock incarceration program . . . , nor his ultimate admission to that program was a condition of the plea at p. 1418 ≈ altered
35 citation events (35 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Delgado (nyappdiv, 2020-05-01)
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011 2018 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Delgado
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
We reject defendant's contention, however, because the record establishes that "neither [his] eligibility for [the temporary release program] . . . nor his ultimate" admission to such a program "was a condition of the plea" ( People v Williams , 84 AD3d 1417, 1418 [2d Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 863 [2011]; see also People v Demick , 138 AD3d 1486, 1486 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1150 [2016]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Tchiyuka
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
Preliminarily, we note that defendant's contention survives his waiver of the right to appeal ( see People v Bethea , 133 AD3d 1033, 1034 [3d Dept 2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 992 [2016]; People v Williams , 84 AD3d 1417, 1418 [2d Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 863 [2011]; see generally People v Copes , 145 AD3d 1639 , 1639 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1182 [2017]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Bennett
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the record establishes that neither the defendant’s eligibility for a temporary release program nor his admission into such a program was a condition of the plea (see People v Whitty, 140 AD3d 802 [2016]; People v Demick, 138 AD3d 1486 [2016]; People v Williams, 84 AD3d 1417, 1418 [2011]; see generally People v Ballato, 128 AD3d 846, 847 [2016]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Demick
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Contrary to defendant’s contention, however, the record establishes that “neither [his] eligibility for the shock incarceration program . . . , nor his ultimate admission to that program was a condition of the plea” (People v Williams, 84 AD3d 1417, 1418 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 863 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Demick
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Contrary to defendant’s contention, however, the record establishes that “neither [his] eligibility for the shock incarceration program . . . , nor his ultimate admission to that program was a condition of the plea” (People v Williams, 84 AD3d 1417, 1418 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 863 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Muhammad
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Consequently, we find that defendant’s plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent, and that, because County Court’s promise to defendant cannot be honored as a matter of law, he is entitled to vacatur of his guilty plea (see People v Wiggins, 126 AD3d 1229, 1230-1231 [2015]; compare People v Benson, 100 AD3d at 1109 ; People v Williams, 84 AD3d 1417, 1417-1418 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 863 [2011]; People v Vanguilder, 32 AD3d at 1110-1111 ). *1070 Egan Jr., J.P., Devine and Clark, JJ., concur.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Massey
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
The record does not support defendant’s contention that County Court misapprehended the extent of its discretion when it denied his request for a “violent felony override” pursuant to 7 NYCRR 1900.4 (c) (1) (iii) (see People v Williams, 84 AD3d 1417, 1417 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 863 [2011]; see generally People v Singer, 104 AD3d 1311, 1311 [2013]), and we reject defendant’s further contention that the court abused its discretion in denying that request.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Massey
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
The record does not support defendant’s contention that County Court misapprehended the extent of its discretion when it denied his request for a “violent felony override” pursuant to 7 NYCRR 1900.4 (c) (1) (iii) (see People v Williams, 84 AD3d 1417, 1417 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 863 [2011]; see generally People v Singer, 104 AD3d 1311, 1311 [2013]), and we reject defendant’s further contention that the court abused its discretion in denying that request.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Franco
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
By waiving his right to appeal, the defendant gave up the right to challenge the adequacy of defense counsel’s representation, except insofar as counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness affected the voluntariness of the defendant’s plea (see People v Williams, 84 AD3d 1417, 1418 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Franco
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
By waiving his right to appeal, the defendant gave up the right to challenge the adequacy of defense counsel’s representation, except insofar as counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness affected the voluntariness of the defendant’s plea (see People v Williams, 84 AD3d 1417, 1418 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Benson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Although defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of his plea— including his assertion that the plea was induced by an unfulfilled promise that he would be admitted to a shock incarceration program — survives the appeal waiver (see People v Robinson, 86 AD3d 719, 720 [2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 966 [2012]; People v Williams, 84 AD3d 1417, 1418 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 863 [2011]), defendant’s arguments on this point are unpreserved absent evidence of an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Taylor, 89 AD3d 1143, 1143-1144 [2011]; People v Planty, 85 AD3d 1317, 1317-1318 [201…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Benson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Although defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of his plea— including his assertion that the plea was induced by an unfulfilled promise that he would be admitted to a shock incarceration program — survives the appeal waiver (see People v Robinson, 86 AD3d 719, 720 [2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 966 [2012]; People v Williams, 84 AD3d 1417, 1418 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 863 [2011]), defendant’s arguments on this point are unpreserved absent evidence of an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Taylor, 89 AD3d 1143, 1143-1144 [2011]; People v Planty, 85 AD3d 1317, 1317-1318 [201…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Soria
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Furthermore, the defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737 [2006]; People v Muniz, 91 NY2d 570 [1998]; People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273 [1992]) precludes appellate review of his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel that did not affect the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Duah, 91 AD3d 884 [2012]; People v Williams, 84 AD3d 1417, 1418 [2011]; People v Yarborough, 83 AD3d 875 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Soria
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Furthermore, the defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737 [2006]; People v Muniz, 91 NY2d 570 [1998]; People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273 [1992]) precludes appellate review of his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel that did not affect the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Duah, 91 AD3d 884 [2012]; People v Williams, 84 AD3d 1417, 1418 [2011]; People v Yarborough, 83 AD3d 875 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. McClurkin
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his claim that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, except to the extent that counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness affected the voluntariness of his pleas (see People v Duah, 91 AD3d 884 [2012]; People v Williams, 84 AD3d 1417, 1418 [2011]; People v Yarborough, 83 AD3d 875 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. McClurkin
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his claim that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, except to the extent that counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness affected the voluntariness of his pleas (see People v Duah, 91 AD3d 884 [2012]; People v Williams, 84 AD3d 1417, 1418 [2011]; People v Yarborough, 83 AD3d 875 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Wright
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
The defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal precludes appellate review of his claim that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, except to the extent that counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness affected the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Duah, 91 AD3d 884 [2012]; People v Williams, 84 AD3d 1417, 1418 [2011]; People v Yarborough, 83 AD3d 875 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Appling
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
The defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]; People v Muniz, 91 NY2d 570 [1998]) precludes appellate review of his claim that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, since it does not relate to the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Duah, 91 AD3d 884 [2012]; People v Williams, 84 AD3d 1417, 1418 [2011]; People v Yarborough, 83 AD3d 875 [2011]), and of his claim that the sentence was excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]; People v Crews, 92 AD3d 795 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Beckers
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contentions that his plea was not voluntary, knowing, and intelligent due to the trial court’s failure to advise him, at the time of his plea, that an order of protection would be imposed upon him at sentencing and that he would be required to register as a sex offender (see People v Williams, 84 AD3d 1417, 1418 [2011]; People v Morrow, 48 AD3d 704, 705 [2008]; People v Dixon, 16 AD3d 517 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Duah
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
The defendant’s valid waiver precludes appellate review of his claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel, except to the extent that counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness affected the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Williams, 84 AD3d 1417, 1418 [2011]; People v Yarborough, 83 AD3d 875 [2011]; People v Watt, 82 AD3d 912 [2011]; People v Aguayo, 73 AD3d 938 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Alonzo
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Although this contention survives the defendant’s otherwise valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]; People v Williams, 84 AD3d 1417, 1418 [2011]; People v Morrow, 48 AD3d 704, 705 [2008]), it is without merit.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Josh Williams
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 31, 2011.
84 A.D.3d 1417
Cited by 30 opinions  |  Published

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Braslow, J.), rendered July 6, 2009, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

At the plea proceeding, the County Court outlined the terms of the plea arrangement, and promised that it would issue what it termed a “violent felony override” to make the defendant eligible for various programs of the Department of Correctional Services (see People v Cumberbatch, 24 Misc 3d 412 [2009]; cf. 7 NYCRR 1900.4 [c] [1] [iii]). The defendant agreed to those terms and, in response to the County Court’s question, stated that he was pleading guilty to attempted burglary in the second degree under the first count of the indictment. The defendant allocuted to the voluntariness of the plea. The County Court thereafter asked the defendant if anyone had made any promises other than what the County Court had already outlined. The defendant responded, “I would just ask for the recommendation of Shock [incarceration] program.” The County Court said, “I think I can get you in Shock with the violent felony override ... I mean, it’s up to the Shock program. But, if I override the violent felony, it doesn’t appear that there’s any reason why they won’t accept you.” The defendant then admitted facts constituting the crime to which he was pleading guilty, and he waived his right to appeal. In fact, the defendant was not eligible[*1418] for the shock incarceration program (Correction Law art 26-A), and the “violent felony override” could not affect that status (see Correction Law § 865 [1]).

The defendant contends that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent because the County Court impliedly promised that he would be admitted to the shock incarceration program (see Correction Law art 26-A). Although the claim survives the defendant’s otherwise valid waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Morrow, 48 AD3d 704, 705 [2008]; People v Stewart, 30 AD3d 624 [2006]), it is without merit. Examination of the plea transcript makes clear that neither the defendant’s eligibility for the shock incarceration program (see Correction Law § 865 [1]), nor his ultimate admission to that program was a condition of the plea (see People v Martinez, 56 AD3d 800 [2008]; People v Taylor, 284 AD2d 573, 574 [2001]; cf. People v Vanguilder, 32 AD3d 1110, 1110-1111 [2006]; People v Christian, 158 AD2d 705, 705-706 [1990]).

By waiving his right to appeal, the defendant gave up his right to challenge the adequacy of his attorney’s representation, except insofar as counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness affected the voluntariness of the defendant’s guilty plea (see People v Ramos, 77 AD3d 773, 774 [2010]). In reviewing that limited claim, we find that counsel was not ineffective (see People v Wolmart, 5 AD3d 706, 707 [2004]). Finally, in light of the defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal, we do not review his claim that the sentence was excessive (see People v Kirkorov, 68 AD3d 1014 [2009]), particularly in light of the fact that he received the sentence that he was promised. Dillon, J.E, Covello, Balkin, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.