DAVIS, JONATHAN, PEOPLE v ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    1378
    KA 14-01512
    PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
    V                              MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    JONATHAN DAVIS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    ERICKSON WEBB SCOLTON & HAJDU, LAKEWOOD (LYLE T. HAJDU OF COUNSEL),
    FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    DAVID W. FOLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, MAYVILLE (JOSEPH M. CALIMERI OF
    COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Chautauqua County Court (John T.
    Ward, J.), rendered July 7, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant,
    upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is
    unanimously affirmed.
    Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him
    upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law §
    160.15 [3]). Defendant’s contention that he was denied effective
    assistance of counsel does not survive his guilty plea where, as here,
    “[t]here is no showing that the plea bargaining process was infected
    by any allegedly ineffective assistance or that defendant entered the
    plea because of his attorney[’]s allegedly poor performance” (People v
    Abdulla, 98 AD3d 1253, 1254, lv denied 20 NY3d 985 [internal quotation
    marks omitted]; see People v Boswell, 117 AD3d 1493, 1493-1494).
    Defendant further contends that County Court failed to conduct a
    sufficient inquiry into whether he possessed the requisite intent to
    commit the offense and thus that his plea was not voluntarily entered.
    Defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review because he
    did not move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of
    conviction, and this case does not fall within the rare exception to
    the preservation requirement set forth in People v Lopez (71 NY2d 662,
    666) because nothing in the plea colloquy casts significant doubt on
    defendant’s guilt or the voluntariness of the plea (see People v
    Laney, 117 AD3d 1481, 1482).
    Entered:    December 23, 2015                      Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: KA 14-01512

Filed Date: 12/23/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/7/2016