Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The People of the State of v. Mark Gantt

State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department


May 26, 2011

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
v.
MARK GANTT, APPELLANT.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County (Ryan, J.), rendered April 19, 2010, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of criminal contempt in the first degree and stalking in the second degree.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mercure, J.P.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Calendar Date: April 18, 2011

Before: Mercure, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen, Kavanagh and McCarthy, JJ.

Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal contempt in the first degree and stalking in the second degree. No specific sentence was promised as part of the plea agreement and County Court thereafter sentenced defendant, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 2 to 4 years in prison, with the sentences to run consecutively to a sentence on a prior conviction. Defendant now appeals.

We affirm. Defendant's contention that his plea was not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered is not preserved for our review in light of his failure to move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Jenks, 69 AD3d 1120, 1121 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 841 [2010]; People v Gorrell, 63 AD3d 1381, 1381 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 744 [2009]). Moreover, the narrow exception to the preservation rule is inapplicable here, inasmuch as defendant did not make any statements during the plea allocution that cast significant doubt on his guilt or tended to negate a material element of the crimes (see People v Scribner, 77 AD3d 1022, 1023 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 746 [2011]; People v Dantzler, 63 AD3d 1376, 1377 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 799 [2010]). Defendant's claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel is similarly unpreserved, and reversal in the interest of justice is unwarranted. Accordingly, County Court's judgment is affirmed.

Rose, Lahtinen, Kavanagh and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court

ENTER:

20110526

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.