REINHARDT, CHRISTOPHER, PEOPLE v ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    105
    KA 09-02119
    PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ.
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
    V                               MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    CHRISTOPHER REINHARDT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    D.J. & J.A. CIRANDO, ESQS., SYRACUSE (BRADLEY E. KEEM OF COUNSEL), FOR
    DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    DONALD H. DODD, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, OSWEGO (MICHAEL G. CIANFARANO OF
    COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Oswego County Court (Walter W.
    Hafner, Jr., J.), rendered October 5, 2009. The judgment convicted
    defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a
    controlled substance in the third degree.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is
    unanimously affirmed.
    Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his
    plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the
    third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [12]), defendant contends that he did
    not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waive his right to appeal
    because his responses to questioning by County Court in connection
    with the waiver were monosyllabic. He further contends that the
    court’s characterization of the right to appeal was “confusing” and
    inadequate. We reject defendant’s contention and instead conclude
    that he validly waived the right to appeal (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d
    248, 256). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge
    to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution by failing to move
    to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see
    People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665), and this case does not fall within
    the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see id. at 666).
    Defendant’s challenge to the court’s suppression ruling is encompassed
    by his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Kemp, 94 NY2d
    831, 833; People v McKeon, 78 AD3d 1617). We have reviewed
    defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without
    merit.
    Entered:   March 25, 2011                          Patricia L. Morgan
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: KA 09-02119

Filed Date: 3/25/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/8/2016