People v. Vilbrin, 2020 NY Slip Op 2825 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020). · Go Syfert
People v. Vilbrin, 2020 NY Slip Op 2825 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Wilkerson (nyappdiv, 2023-11-16)
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Wilkerson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2023 · confidence medium
Defendant's challenges to the voluntariness of his plea and his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, to the extent it implicates the voluntariness of his plea, are unpreserved for our review as the record does not indicate that he made an appropriate postallocution motion ( see People v Vilbrin , 183 AD3d 1012, 1013 [3d Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1049 [2020]; People v White , 172 AD3d 1822 , 1823-1824 [3d Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 1110 [2019]), and the narrow exception to the preservation rule was not triggered ( see People v Lomack , 217 AD3d 1281, 1282 [3d Dept 2023], lv denied…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Agueda
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · confidence medium
Defendant's related contention that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, to the extent that it implicates the voluntariness of his plea, also survives the appeal waiver but is similarly unpreserved ( see People v Vilbrin , 183 AD3d 1012, 1013 [2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1049 [2020]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. McCoy
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
Defendant's contention that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, to the extent that it implicates the voluntariness of his plea, also survives the appeal waiver but is similarly unpreserved ( see People v Vilbrin , 183 AD3d 1012, 1013 [2020], [*2] lv denied 35 NY3d 1049 [2020]; People v White , 172 AD3d 1822 , 1823-1824 [2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 1110 [2019]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Botts
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
Defendant's contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel is precluded by the valid appeal waiver except to the extent that it impacts the voluntariness of the plea, but is also unpreserved for our review in the absence of an appropriate postallocution motion ( see People v Harrington , 185 AD3d 1301, 1302 [2020]; People v Vilbrin , 183 AD3d 1012, 1013 [2020[*2]], lv denied 35 NY3d 1049 [2020]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Miller
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim — to the extent that it impacts upon the voluntariness of his plea — is similarly unpreserved ( see People v Vilbrin , 183 AD3d 1012, 1013 [2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1049 [2020]; People v Sydlosky , 181 AD3d 1094 , 1095 [2020]), as is any challenge to the voluntariness of defendant's admission to violating the terms of the drug court treatment agreement ( see People v Peterson , 147 AD3d 1148, 1149 [2017]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Feltz (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
Defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of the plea is unpreserved for our review as the record does not reflect [*2]that defendant made an appropriate postallocution motion ( see People v Brito , 184 AD3d 900 , 901 [2020]; People v Vilbrin , 183 AD3d 1012, 1013 [2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1049 [2020]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Stanley
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
To the extent that defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim impacts upon the voluntariness of his plea, such claim survives his unchallenged appeal waiver but is unpreserved for our review in the absence of an appropriate postallocution motion ( see CPL 220.60 [3]; People v Vilbrin , 183 AD3d 1012, 1013 [2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1049 [2020]; People v Koontz , 166 AD3d 1215 , 1217-1218 [2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1206 [2019]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Hart
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
To the extent that defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim impacts upon the voluntariness of his plea, such claim survives his unchallenged appeal waiver but is unpreserved for our review in the absence of an appropriate postallocution motion ( see People v Harrington , 185 AD3d 1301, 1302 [2020]; People v Vilbrin , 183 AD3d 1012, 1013 [2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1049 [2020]; People v Gumbs , 182 AD3d 701, 703 [2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1066 [2020]).
People
v.
Vilbrin
109893.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 14, 2020.
2020 NY Slip Op 2825
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published
People v Vilbrin (2020 NY Slip Op 02825)
People v Vilbrin
2020 NY Slip Op 02825
Decided on May 14, 2020
Appellate Division, Third Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided and Entered: May 14, 2020

109893

[*1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

Jonathan Vilbrin, Appellant.


Calendar Date: March 27, 2020
Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Lynch, Mulvey and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ.

Brian M. Quinn, Albany, for appellant.

J. Anthony Jordan, District Attorney, Fort Edward (Taylor Fitzsimmons of counsel), for respondent.



Lynch, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Washington County (McKeighan, J.), rendered September 15, 2017, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted murder in the second degree.

Based on a March 21, 2017 incident in which defendant stabbed the victim with a knife, defendant pleaded guilty, in full satisfaction of a six-count indictment, to attempted murder in the second degree and waived the right to appeal. In accord with the plea agreement, County Court sentenced defendant to 17 years in prison, to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.

Defendant's challenge to the plea as involuntary and his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, to the extent that it implicates the voluntariness of the plea, survive his unchallenged appeal waiver but are unpreserved for our review as the record does not reflect that defendant made an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v White, 172 AD3d 1822, 1823-1824 [2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 1110 [2019]; People v Peryea, 169 AD3d 1120, 1120 [2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 980 [2019]). Nor are we persuaded by defendant's contention that his reference at sentencing to the use of Zoloft cast doubt upon his guilt or called into question the voluntariness of his plea so as to trigger the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Tyrell, 22 NY3d 359, 363-364 [2013]; compare People v Chin, 160 AD3d 1038, 1039 [2018]). During the plea colloquy, defendant advised County Court that he had been treated for depression since February 2017, had been hospitalized for a week and was taking a prescribed medication. Defendant then responded affirmatively when the court asked whether the medication helped and allowed him to think clearly. Defendant further confirmed that he was able to ask questions of his attorney and to understand the responses. When asked whether he had any concerns "in that regard," counsel responded "none whatsoever." Defendant did not specify that he was using Zoloft.

At sentencing, defendant initially complained that he was being sentenced "for 17 years for an inch and a half hand laceration and a black eye." He asserted that counsel was ineffective, stating, "I've brought up something with Zoloft, and anything I brought up to him was nothing." Defendant further instructed the court to "[l]ook up Zoloft." According to defendant, these comments raised the potential defense that he acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance (see Penal Law § 125.25 [1] [a]). To the contrary, defendant's generic reference to Zoloft raises no such issue given his explanation during the plea colloquy that the medication he was taking for depression did not affect his ability to think clearly. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Mulvey and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.