People v. Kelly, 145 A.D.3d 1431 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). · Go Syfert
People v. Kelly, 145 A.D.3d 1431 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Barzee (nyappdiv, 2022-04-22)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Barzee
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · confidence medium
We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]; Kelly , 145 AD3d at 1431).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Bellamy
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · signal: see also · confidence low
While defendant's contention that his plea was coerced by statements made by the court or was otherwise involuntarily entered "survives even a valid waiver of the right to appeal" ( People v Cooper , 79 AD3d 1684, 1684 [4th Dept 2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 857 [2011]; see also People v Jennings , 8 AD3d 1067 , 1068 [4th Dept 2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 676 [2004]), we conclude that it is unpreserved for our review because he failed to move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction ( see People v Kelly , 145 AD3d 1431 , 1431 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 29 NY3d 949 [2017]; People v Robin…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Christopher J. Kelly
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 23, 2016.
145 A.D.3d 1431
Carni, Curran, Dejoseph, Nemoyer, Peradotto.
Published

Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Thomas G. Leone, J.), rendered November 23, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted murder in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a guilty plea of attempted murder in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 125.25 [1]). Defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction and thus failed to preserve for our review his contention that his plea was coerced because County Court threatened to impose a greater sentence in the event of a conviction following trial (see People v Lando, 61 AD3d 1389, 1389 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 746 [2009]). We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]). Defendant also failed to preserve his contention that his plea was coerced by the court’s denial of his request for public funds and an adjournment to retain a psychiatric expert (see generally People v Lesame, 239 AD2d 801, 802 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 941 [1997]). In any event, we conclude that defendant’s contention is belied by the record and without merit (see People v Hall, 82 AD3d 1619, 1619-1620 [2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 895 [2011]).

To the extent that defendant contends that he was denied the right to present a defense by an alleged denial of public funds to retain an expert, we conclude that, by pleading guilty, defendant forfeited the right to challenge any such denial (see People v McGuay, 120 AD3d 1566, 1567 [2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 1167 [2015]). We further conclude that defendant waived his right to appellate review of this issue because defense counsel “withdrew [the application] ‘before the court rendered its decision’ ” (People v Hazzard, 129 AD3d 1598, 1600 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 968 [2015]; see People v King, 115 AD3d[*1432] 986, 987 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1064 [2014]).

Presents Peradotto, J.P, Carni, DeJoseph, NeMoyer and Curran, JJ.