GORDON, JERMAINE J., PEOPLE v ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •         SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    856
    KA 10-02075
    PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, FAHEY, AND PERADOTTO, JJ.
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
    V                              MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    JERMAINE J. GORDON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    D.J. & J.A. CIRANDO, ESQS., SYRACUSE (BRADLEY E. KEEM OF COUNSEL), FOR
    DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    DAVID W. FOLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, MAYVILLE (LYNN SCHAFFER OF
    COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Chautauqua County Court (John T.
    Ward, J.), rendered August 30, 2010. The judgment convicted
    defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the second degree.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is
    unanimously affirmed.
    Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him
    upon his guilty plea of assault in the second degree (Penal Law §
    120.05 [1]). Defendant’s contention “that his plea was not knowing,
    intelligent and voluntary ‘because he did not recite the underlying
    facts of the crime but simply replied to County Court’s questions with
    monosyllabic responses is actually a challenge to the factual
    sufficiency of the plea allocution’ ” (People v Simcoe, 74 AD3d 1858,
    1859, lv denied 15 NY3d 778; see People v Brown, 66 AD3d 1385, 1385,
    lv denied 14 NY3d 839). “[D]efendant failed to preserve that
    challenge for our review by moving to withdraw the plea or . . . to
    vacate the judgment of conviction” (People v Jamison, 71 AD3d 1435,
    1436, lv denied 14 NY3d 888; see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665).
    In any event, “[d]efendant’s monosyllabic responses to [the c]ourt’s
    questions did not render the plea invalid. Moreover, there is no
    requirement that a defendant personally recite the facts underlying
    his or her crime[] during the plea colloquy, and, here, [t]he record
    establishes that defendant confirmed the accuracy of [the court’s]
    recitation of the facts underlying the crime” (People v Bullock, 78
    AD3d 1697, 1698, lv denied 16 NY3d 742 [internal quotation marks and
    citations omitted]; see Jamison, 71 AD3d at 1436; People v Bailey, 49
    AD3d 1258, 1259, lv denied 10 NY3d 932).
    -2-                              856
    KA 10-02075
    Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
    Entered:   September 28, 2012                   Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: KA 10-02075

Filed Date: 9/28/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/8/2016