People v. DeJesus, 96 A.D.3d 1295 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. DeJesus, 96 A.D.3d 1295 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Livziey (nyappdiv, 2014-05-29)
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Livziey
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Such claims regarding the voluntariness of his plea are unpreserved for review, however, as the record does not reflect that defendant made an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Aitken, 101 AD3d 1383 , 1384 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 1040 [2013]; People v DeJesus, 96 AD3d 1295, 1295 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Livziey
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Such claims regarding the voluntariness of his plea are unpreserved for review, however, as the record does not reflect that defendant made an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Aitken, 101 AD3d 1383 , 1384 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 1040 [2013]; People v DeJesus, 96 AD3d 1295, 1295 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. McGowan
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Furthermore, while defendant’s claim of ineffective representation survives his appeal waiver to the extent that such representation might have affected the voluntariness of his plea, defendant’s argument that counsel pressured him during certain conversations to accept the plea offer involves matters outside the record and is thus more properly raised in a CPL article 440 motion (see People v DeJesus, 96 AD3d 1295, 1295-1296 [2012]; People v Pendelton, 81 AD3d 1037, 1038-1039 [2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 898 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. McGowan
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Furthermore, while defendant’s claim of ineffective representation survives his appeal waiver to the extent that such representation might have affected the voluntariness of his plea, defendant’s argument that counsel pressured him during certain conversations to accept the plea offer involves matters outside the record and is thus more properly raised in a CPL article 440 motion (see People v DeJesus, 96 AD3d 1295, 1295-1296 [2012]; People v Pendelton, 81 AD3d 1037, 1038-1039 [2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 898 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Newton
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Defendant’s claim that his plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary is not preserved for our review absent evidence that defendant moved to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction, and the narrow exception to the preservation requirement is not applicable, as defendant made no statements during the plea allocution that cast doubt upon his guilt or negated an essential element of the crime (see People v Williams, 101 AD3d 1174, 1174 [2012]; People v DeJesus, 96 AD3d 1295, 1295 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Newton
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Defendant’s claim that his plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary is not preserved for our review absent evidence that defendant moved to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction, and the narrow exception to the preservation requirement is not applicable, as defendant made no statements during the plea allocution that cast doubt upon his guilt or negated an essential element of the crime (see People v Williams, 101 AD3d 1174, 1174 [2012]; People v DeJesus, 96 AD3d 1295, 1295 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Beniquez
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
While defendant did not move to withdraw the plea (and we have no indication on this record that defendant moved to vacate the judgment of conviction) so as to preserve his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution (see People v DeJesus, 96 AD3d 1295, 1295 [2012]), we find it appropriate to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction and reverse given, in part, that defense counsel may have been dissuaded from making such a motion by County Court’s advisement to defendant during the plea colloquy that if he violated the conditions of his release he “will not be permitte…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Beniquez
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
While defendant did not move to withdraw the plea (and we have no indication on this record that defendant moved to vacate the judgment of conviction) so as to preserve his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution (see People v DeJesus, 96 AD3d 1295, 1295 [2012]), we find it appropriate to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction and reverse given, in part, that defense counsel may have been dissuaded from making such a motion by County Court’s advisement to defendant during the plea colloquy that if he violated the conditions of his release he “will not be permitte…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Stroman
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Defendant’s contention that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily or intelligently made is unpreserved for our review as there is no indication in this record that he moved to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Doe, 95 AD3d 1449, 1449 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 995 [2012]), and he made no statements during the plea allocution that would implicate the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v DeJesus, 96 AD3d 1295, 1295 [2012]; People v Campbell, 89 AD3d 1279, 1279 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Stroman
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Defendant’s contention that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily or intelligently made is unpreserved for our review as there is no indication in this record that he moved to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Doe, 95 AD3d 1449, 1449 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 995 [2012]), and he made no statements during the plea allocution that would implicate the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v DeJesus, 96 AD3d 1295, 1295 [2012]; People v Campbell, 89 AD3d 1279, 1279 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Boone
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
While defendant’s claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel survives his waiver of appeal to the extent that it impacts upon the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Jerome, 98 AD3d 1188, 1189 [2012]), the record does not indicate that defendant made an appropriate motion to withdraw his plea and, therefore, it has not been preserved for our review (see People v Benson, 100 AD3d 1108, 1109 [2012]; People v DeJesus, 96 AD 3d 1295, 1295 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Boone
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
While defendant’s claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel survives his waiver of appeal to the extent that it impacts upon the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Jerome, 98 AD3d 1188, 1189 [2012]), the record does not indicate that defendant made an appropriate motion to withdraw his plea and, therefore, it has not been preserved for our review (see People v Benson, 100 AD3d 1108, 1109 [2012]; People v DeJesus, 96 AD 3d 1295, 1295 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Whalen
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Defendant’s claim that his guilty plea was not knowing, intelligent or voluntary is not preserved for appellate review, inasmuch as the record fails to indicate that he moved to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v DeJesus, 96 AD3d 1295, 1295 [2012]; People v Leszczynski, 96 AD3d 1162, 1162 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 998 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Williams
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Further, inasmuch as the record before us does not indicate that defendant moved to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction, his challenge to the voluntariness of his plea has not been preserved for our review and the narrow exception to the preservation rule is not applicable, as nothing in the plea allocution cast doubt on his guilt or negated an essential element of the crime (see People v DeJesus, 96 AD3d 1295, 1295 [2012]; People v Clemons, 96 AD3d 1086, 1087 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1101 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Whalen
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Defendant’s claim that his guilty plea was not knowing, intelligent or voluntary is not preserved for appellate review, inasmuch as the record fails to indicate that he moved to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v DeJesus, 96 AD3d 1295, 1295 [2012]; People v Leszczynski, 96 AD3d 1162, 1162 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 998 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Williams
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Further, inasmuch as the record before us does not indicate that defendant moved to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction, his challenge to the voluntariness of his plea has not been preserved for our review and the narrow exception to the preservation rule is not applicable, as nothing in the plea allocution cast doubt on his guilt or negated an essential element of the crime (see People v DeJesus, 96 AD3d 1295, 1295 [2012]; People v Clemons, 96 AD3d 1086, 1087 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1101 [2012]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Edward R. DeJesus
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 28, 2012.
96 A.D.3d 1295
McCarthy.
Cited by 16 opinions  |  Published
McCarthy, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Cawley, J.), rendered March 4, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal contempt in the first degree.

Defendant waived indictment and pleaded guilty to a superior court information charging him with criminal contempt in the first degree for violating an order of protection. County Court sentenced him to nine months in jail. Defendant now appeals.

We affirm. Inasmuch as the record before us does not indicate that defendant moved to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction, his challenge to the voluntariness of his plea has not been preserved for our review and defendant made no statements that would implicate the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Stewart, 92 AD3d 1146, 1147 [2012]; People v Teele, 92 AD3d 972, 972 [2012]). In any event, County Court engaged in a lengthy, detailed colloquy with defendant regarding the rights he was relinquishing and the possible consequences of his plea, including deportation. Likewise, defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, to the extent that it impacted the voluntariness of his plea, is unpreserved by the lack of evidence in the record that he has moved to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Carpenter, 93 AD3d 950, 952 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 863 [2012]; People v Benson, 87 AD3d 1228, 1228-1229 [2011]). Notwithstanding, his claim that counsel pressured him into pleading guilty without adequately exploring potential de[*1296] fenses involves matters outside the record and is, therefore, more appropriately the subject of a CPL article 440 motion (see People v Davis, 84 AD3d 1645, 1646 n [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 815 [2011]; People v Pendelton, 81 AD3d 1037, 1038-1039 [2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 898 [2011]). Defendant’s remaining contention, that his sentence was harsh and excessive, has been examined and found to be without merit.

Mercure, J.P., Kavanagh, Stein and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.