People v Hamilton
2007 NY Slip Op 08648 [45 AD3d 1396]
November 9, 2007
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
As corrected through Wednesday, January 16, 2008


The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v ErnestHamilton, Appellant.

[*1]D.J. & J.A. Cirando, Esqs., Syracuse (Robert H. Middlemiss of counsel), fordefendant-appellant. Cindy F. Intschert, District Attorney, Watertown (Matthew A. Goettel ofcounsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Jefferson County Court (Kim H. Martusewicz, J.), renderedOctober 17, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attemptedpromoting prison contraband in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby isunanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty ofattempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00,205.25 [2]). Defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment ofconviction and thus failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the factual sufficiency ofthe plea allocution (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]; People v McGrail, 42 AD3d 962[2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 878 [2007]; People v Hakes, 38 AD3d 1273 [2007]). In any event, the recordestablishes that defendant's contention is without merit. Defendant waived his further contentionthat County Court erred in closing the courtroom at the time of the plea. "The right to a publictrial may be waived by failure to make appropriate objection" (People v Brown, 278AD2d 60 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 798 [2001]), and here defendant failed to make anobjection.

Finally, defendant contends that his plea was coerced because the court advised him of thepotential terms of incarceration in the event of a conviction following a trial. The record does notsupport that contention. "The court, 'while impressing upon defendant the strength of the People'scase, the potential sentence to which defendant was exposed under the indictment, and thefavorableness of the plea bargain, reiterated throughout the colloquy that the decision to eitherplead guilty or go to trial remained with the defendant' " (People v Campbell, 236 AD2d877, 878 [1997]; see People v Villone, 302 AD2d 866 [2003], lv denied 4 NY3d768 [2005]; see also People v Hobart, 286 AD2d 916, 917 [2001], lv denied 97NY2d 683 [2001]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Smith, Fahey and Pine, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.