From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Lebron

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jun 1, 2016
140 A.D.3d 790 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

06-01-2016

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Angel LEBRON, appellant.

Neal D. Futerfas, White Plains, N.Y., for appellant. William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Bridget Rahilly Steller of counsel), for respondent.


Neal D. Futerfas, White Plains, N.Y., for appellant.

William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Bridget Rahilly Steller of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Greller, J., at plea; Hayes, J., at sentence), rendered April 12, 2011, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent because his factual recitation raised the possibility of a justification defense is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ). Although the defendant's allocution may have raised the possibility that a viable justification defense existed, the County Court made the requisite further inquiry with respect to that potential defense, to ensure that the defendant's plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered, and the defendant neither challenged the adequacy of that inquiry nor moved to withdraw his plea of guilty (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d at 667–668, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ; People v. Sierra, 256 A.D.2d 598, 599–600, 683 N.Y.S.2d 563 ). In any event, contrary to the defendant's contention, the further inquiry made by the County Court was sufficient to ensure the validity of the defendant's plea of guilty, and we agree with the County Court's determination that the defendant's plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Alonzo, 90 A.D.3d 1065, 934 N.Y.S.2d 831 ; People v. Mead, 27 A.D.3d 767, 815 N.Y.S.2d 616 ).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).

DILLON, J.P., SGROI, MILLER and BARROS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Lebron

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jun 1, 2016
140 A.D.3d 790 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

People v. Lebron

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Angel LEBRON, appellant.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Jun 1, 2016

Citations

140 A.D.3d 790 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
30 N.Y.S.3d 907
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 4237

Citing Cases

People v. Anderson

The defendant's purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid and, thus, does not preclude review of…

People v. Williams

Where the court failed in its duty to inquire further, a defendant may raise a claim regarding the validity…