HALL, WILLIE, PEOPLE v
KA 10-00023
N.Y. App. Div.
Mar 25, 2011
Check Treatment

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v WILLIE HALL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

KA 10-00023

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

March 25, 2011

239

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, CARNI, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ.

LINDA M. CAMPBELL, SYRACUSE, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

WILLIE HALL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (VICTORIA M. WHITE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (John J. Brunetti, A.J.), rendered October 2, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the first degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a plea of guilty of assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [4]), defendant contends that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent because it was coerced by Supreme Court. Defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction on that ground and therefore failed to preserve his contention for our review (see

,
).

In any event, defendant‘s contention is belied by the record inasmuch as, during the plea proceeding, defendant denied that he had been threatened or otherwise influenced against his will into pleading guilty (see

,
;
,
).

Furthermore, defendant was not coerced into pleading guilty by virtue of the fact that the court merely informed him of the range of sentences that he faced if he proceeded to trial and was convicted (see

,
;
,
).

Also contrary to defendant‘s contention, under the circumstances of this case the court did not coerce him into pleading guilty by commenting on the likelihood that defendant would be acquitted of a particular charge or on the strength of the People‘s evidence against him (see generally

,
;
;
).

Defendant failed to preserve for our review his further contention that he was not properly adjudicated a second violent felony offender because neither the People nor the court complied with CPL 400.15 (see

; see also
; see generally
).

In any event, that contention is without merit. The record establishes that there was “substantial compliance with CPL 400.15 . . . inasmuch as both defendant and defense counsel ‘received adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard with respect to the prior conviction’ ” (

; see generally
).

Finally, contrary to the contention of defendant in his pro se supplemental brief, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: March 25, 2011

Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court