People v. McDonald, 295 A.D.2d 756 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. McDonald, 295 A.D.2d 756 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Anderson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Further, as the People concede, defendant was not sentenced as a second felony offender and the notation to that effect must be removed from the sentencing and commitment form (see People v Vasavada, 93 AD3d 893, 894 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 978 [2012]; People v Hawkins, 70 AD3d 1389, 1390 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 888 [2010]). * Finally, defendant’s contention regarding the severity of his prison sentence is precluded by his valid waiver of the right to appeal his conviction and sentence (see People v Santana, 95 AD3d 1503, 1504 [2012]; People v McDonald, 295 AD2d 756, 757 [2002], lv denie…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Anderson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Further, as the People concede, defendant was not sentenced as a second felony offender and the notation to that effect must be removed from the sentencing and commitment form (see People v Vasavada, 93 AD3d 893, 894 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 978 [2012]; People v Hawkins, 70 AD3d 1389, 1390 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 888 [2010]). * Finally, defendant’s contention regarding the severity of his prison sentence is precluded by his valid waiver of the right to appeal his conviction and sentence (see People v Santana, 95 AD3d 1503, 1504 [2012]; People v McDonald, 295 AD2d 756, 757 [2002], lv denie…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Quinones
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Rather, defendant’s argument on this point is addressed to the factual sufficiency of the superior court information—an argument that he failed to preserve by timely objection and one that is, in any event, precluded by his guilty plea (see People v Gibson, 21 AD3d 577, 578 [2005]; see also People v Champion, 20 AD3d 772, 774 [2005]; People v McDonald, 295 AD2d 756, 757 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 711 [2002]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Gibson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
Although defendant asserts that the special information was defective, he failed to object to it and, therefore, has not preserved this claim for appellate review (see People v McDonald, 295 AD2d 756, 757 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 711 [2002]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Tower
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
Given her knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of the right to appeal, her challenge to the severity of the sentence imposed will not lie reviewed (see People v Clow, 10 AD3d 803 [2004]; see also People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 9-11 [1989]; People v McDonald, 295 AD2d 756, 757 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 711 [2002]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Schuh
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
Defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the special information is not preserved for our review (see People v McDonald, 295 AD2d 756, 757 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 711 [2002]; People v Mienko, 282 AD2d 283 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 904 [2001]; People v Torres, 96 AD2d 604, 605 [1983]; see generally People v Finger, 95 NY2d 894, 895 [2000]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Boyce
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · confidence medium
Finally, in view of our finding that the plea allocution demonstrates a knowing, voluntary and intelligent guilty plea and waiver of appeal intended comprehensively to cover all aspects of this case, defendant’s challenge to County Court’s imposition of the lawful agreed-upon sentence is precluded (see People v Allen, 82 NY2d 761, 763 [19933; People v Seaberg, supra at 8-10 ; People v McDonald, 295 AD2d 756, 757 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 711 [2002]; see also People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733 [1998]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Timothy M. McDonald
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 20, 2002.
295 A.D.2d 756
Rose.
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published
Rose, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Breslin, J.), rendered October 17, 2000, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of driving while intoxicated.

Defendant operated a motor vehicle in an intoxicated condition in Albany County and was charged in a superior court information (hereinafter SCI) with the crime of driving while intoxicated (hereinafter DWI) as a felony. The SCI was accompanied by a special information and two statements of prior conviction charging that defendant had twice been convicted of DWI in Warren County within the preceding 10 years. Defendant pleaded guilty as charged in the SCI, received a specific sentence commitment and waived his right to appeal. In accordance with the plea agreement, he was sentenced to a prison term of 1 to 3 years to run consecutive to a prison term of IV2 to 4V2 years imposed in connection with yet a third DWI conviction in Warren County. Defendant appeals.

[*757] Although defendant asserts that the SCI was legally insufficient to charge him with the crime of DWI as a felony because the supporting special information was factually inadequate for failure to specify his date of birth, he failed to object to the SCI before County Court and has not preserved this claim for appellate review (see, People v Torres, 96 AD2d 604, 605). In any event, defendant’s knowing, voluntary and intelligent plea of guilty would preclude us from reviewing the sufficiency of the factual allegations contained in the SCI (see, People v Price, 234 AD2d 978, 978-979, lv denied 90 NY2d 862; People v Fields, 208 AD2d 1050, 1050, lv denied 84 NY2d 735; People v Dezimm, 193 AD2d 976, 976).

In view of defendant’s explicit waiver of his right to appeal the agreed-upon sentence, we will not consider his contention that it is harsh and excessive (see, People v Allen, 82 NY2d 761, 762; People v Deemer, 261 AD2d 722). We have reviewed defendant’s remaining claim and found it to be unavailing.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Spain and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.