From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. MacCue

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 24, 2004
8 A.D.3d 910 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

14876.

Decided and Entered June 24, 2004.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Nicandri, J.), rendered March 10, 2003, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of two counts of the crime of rape in the third degree.

John A. Cirando, Syracuse, for appellant.

Jerome J. Richards, District Attorney, Canton (Laurie L. Paro of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Carpinello, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of rape in the third degree as charged in a superior court information, and waived his right to appeal. At the time of his plea, no sentencing promises were made by the People or County Court. At sentencing, County Court imposed consecutive one-year jail terms on each count. Defendant appeals.

Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the plea allocution is precluded by his waiver of the right to appeal, as well as by his failure to move to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v. Kelly, 3 A.D.3d 789, 789; People v. Kalenak, 2 A.D.3d 902, 902). Furthermore, the exception to the preservation rule is inapplicable, as defendant made no statements during the plea allocution that were inconsistent with his guilt and, indeed, his responses to County Court's questions established the elements of the crimes (see People v. Kelly, supra at 789; People v. Kalenak, supra at 902). Defendant's contention that his sentence is unduly harsh does not survive his voluntary, knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Anderson, 304 A.D.2d 975, 976, lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 578). In any event, given defendant's prior criminal history and the nature of the crimes, we discern "no extraordinary circumstances that would warrant a reduction in the interest of justice" (People v. Gambaccini, 2 A.D.3d 1065, 1067; see People v. Cooney, 290 A.D.2d 727, 728, lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 752).

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. MacCue

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 24, 2004
8 A.D.3d 910 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

People v. MacCue

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. LOUIS J. MacCUE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jun 24, 2004

Citations

8 A.D.3d 910 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
778 N.Y.S.2d 731

Citing Cases

People v. Simmons

Defendant now challenges the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution. Where, as here, the plea was…

People v. Sharlow

Were that claim properly before us, we would find it lacking in merit ( see People v. Wehrle, 308 AD2d 660,…