PEOPLE v. WILLIAMS

2014-05285, Ind. No. 2593/12.

2017 NY Slip Op 03024

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RICKY WILLIAMS, Appellant.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Lynn W. L. Fahey , New York, NY ( Dina Zloczower of counsel), for appellant.

Eric Gonzalez , Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY ( Leonard Joblove , Thomas M. Ross , and Corey Omer of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Reinaldo E. Rivera, J.P., Ruth C. Balkin, Betsy Barros, Valerie Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.


Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gary, J.), rendered April 30, 2014, convicting him of burglary in the third degree (two counts), criminal mischief in the fourth degree (two counts), criminal trespass in the second degree, and petit larceny, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

DECISION & ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that his waiver of the right to a jury trial was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Johnson, 51 N.Y.2d 986, 987-988; People v Pazmini, 132 A.D.3d 1015; People v Petitbrun, 123 A.D.3d 1057, 1058; People v Butler, 17 A.D.3d 379, 380). In any event, the record does not support the defendant's contention that the waiver was invalid. The defendant executed a written waiver in open court after allocution by the court, the trial justice approved the waiver, and the circumstances surrounding the waiver supported the Supreme Court's determination that the waiver was made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently (see People v Pazmini, 132 AD3d at 1015; People v Silva, 91 A.D.3d 675, 675; People v Fani, 59 A.D.3d 460).

The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court misapprehended its discretion by not sentencing him to parole supervision is unpreserved for appellate review and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 410.91; People v Eggsware, 90 A.D.3d 1231, 1234 n 2; People v Rivers, 63 A.D.3d 423). The defendant's further contention that he received ineffective assistance of counsel is not reviewable on direct appeal because it involves matter dehors the record (see People v Love, 57 N.Y.2d 998, 1000; People v Rivers, 63 AD3d at 423).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

RIVERA, J.P., BALKIN, BARROS and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases