Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Kendel A. Jordan, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2017-08-23
Citations: 153 A.D.3d 1130
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kendel A. Jordan, Appellant.
Judges: Present — Smith, J.P., Centra, DeJoseph, NeMoyer and Scudder, JJ.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 153
Pages: 1130–1131

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kendel A. Jordan, Appellant.
[57 NYS3d 919]

Opinion:
Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (Frederick G. Reed, A.J.), rendered October 29, 2014. 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 a plea of guilty of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]), defendant contends in his pro se supplemental brief that the grand jury proceedings were impaired because the prosecutor presented inadmissible evidence. "It is well settled that '[a] guilty plea generally results in a forfeiture of the right to ap pellate review of any nonjurisdictional defects in the proceedings' " (People v Granger, 96 AD3d 1669, 1669 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1102 [2012], quoting People v Fernandez, 67 NY2d 686, 688 [1986]). Therefore, "[b]y pleading guilty, defendant forfeited his present contention that the grand jury proceedings were impaired, inasmuch as the alleged error did not render the accusatory instrument jurisdictionally defective" (People v Monacelli, 299 AD2d 916, 916 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 617 [2003]; see generally People v Hansen, 95 NY2d 227, 232 [2000]; People v Newkirk, 133 AD3d 1364, 1365 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1148 [2016]). The remaining contentions in defendant's pro se supplemental brief are based on facts outside the record and thus must be raised by way of a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 (see People v Miller, 68 AD3d 1135, 1135 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 803 [2010]; see also People v Evans, 137 AD3d 1683, 1683-1684 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1131 [2016]).
Finally, contrary to defendant's contention in his main brief, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
Present — Smith, J.P., Centra, DeJoseph, NeMoyer and Scudder, JJ.