Court Opinion

ID: 4216455
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-10-31 16:12:42.504451+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:43.925164
License: Public Domain

People v Garnes (2017 NY Slip Op 07549)

People v Garnes

2017 NY Slip Op 07549

Decided on October 31, 2017

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on October 31, 2017

Acosta, P.J., Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, Kapnick, Kahn, JJ.

2068/13 4861A 2373/14 4861

[*1] The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
vJavann Garnes, Defendant-Appellant.

Feldman and Feldman, Uniondale (Steven A. Feldman of counsel), for appellant.
Javann Garnes, appellant pro se.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Alexander Michaels of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Patricia M. Nuñez, J.), rendered March 6, 2014, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years' probation; and judgment, same court (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered October 15, 2015, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of conspiracy in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 5½ to 16½ years, and also convicting him of violation of probation, revoking the above-mentioned sentence of probation and resentencing him to a consecutive term of 2½ years, unanimously affirmed.
Although we do not find that defendant made a valid waiver of the right to appeal, we perceive no basis for reducing the sentences or running them concurrently.
Defendant's pro se ineffective assistance of counsel claims are unreviewable on direct appeal because they involve matters not reflected in, or fully explained by, the record (see People v Rivera , 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]). Accordingly, since defendant has not made a CPL 440.10 motion, the merits of the ineffectiveness claims may not be addressed on appeal. We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining pro se claims.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: OCTOBER 31, 2017
CLERK