WILLIAMS, CHARLES, PEOPLE v ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •         SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    1283
    KA 11-00014
    PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ.
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
    V                              MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    CHARLES WILLIAMS, ALSO KNOWN AS CASH,
    DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    CHARLES A. MARANGOLA, MORAVIA, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    JON E. BUDELMANN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AUBURN (CHRISTOPHER T. VALDINA OF
    COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Thomas G.
    Leone, J.), rendered November 18, 2010. The judgment convicted
    defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled
    substance in the third degree (two counts).
    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 two counts of criminal sale of a controlled
    substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]), defendant
    contends that the indictment should be dismissed because he appeared
    before the grand jury in shackles and handcuffs. Although that
    contention survives the guilty plea (see People v Crumpler, 70 AD3d
    1396, lv denied 14 NY3d 839; People v Gilmore, 12 AD3d 1155, 1155-
    1156), it “is not preserved for our review because defendant did not
    object to appearing before the grand jury in that manner or request
    cautionary instructions with respect to that appearance” (People v
    Abron, 37 AD3d 1163, lv denied 8 NY3d 980; see People v Robinson, 49
    AD3d 1269, 1270, lv denied 10 NY3d 869; see generally People v
    Johnston, 43 AD3d 1273, 1274, lv denied 9 NY3d 1007). Further,
    defendant abandoned that contention by pleading guilty before County
    Court decided that part of his motion seeking to dismiss the
    indictment on the ground that he appeared before the grand jury in
    shackles and handcuffs (see People v Barker [appeal No. 1], 254 AD2d
    730, lv denied 93 NY2d 870; see generally People v Fortin, 289 AD2d
    590, 591, lv denied 97 NY2d 754). By pleading guilty, defendant
    forfeited his further contention that he was denied his right to
    testify before the grand jury based on the prosecutor’s refusal to
    provide him with notice of all charges the grand jury would consider
    (see People v Gray, 62 AD3d 1256; People v Hoeft, 42 AD3d 968, 969, lv
    denied 9 NY3d 962; People v Winchester, 38 AD3d 1336, 1337, lv denied
    -2-                          1283
    KA 11-00014
    9 NY3d 853).   In any event, that contention is without merit.
    Entered:   December 23, 2011                     Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: KA 11-00014

Filed Date: 12/23/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/8/2016