A man filed an appeal from the decision of the Supreme Court convicting him of rape in the first degree, two counts of criminal sexual act in the first degree and incest, upon his plea of guilty and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review an order of protection issued at the time of sentencing.
With regards to the man’s contention that his plea was not knowing and voluntary, the court states that it is unpreserved for appellate review since he failed to move to withdraw his plea. Sources revealed that the narrow exception to the preservation rule, which arises when the offender’s plea recitation of the facts underlying the crime casts significant doubt on his guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea, is inapplicable in the case of the man.
The court further stated that the man has no basis to complain about the length of the sentence imposed to him, since the sentence was part of the negotiated plea bargain. Contrary to the man’s contention, the Supreme Court did not inefficiently exercise its discretion in finding the duration of the final order of protection entered against him.
Based on records, the minimum period of post-release supervision that the sentencing court could have imposed was 2½ years. Contrary to the man’s contention, the Supreme Court did not misapprehend its sentencing judgment with respect to that period. Moreover, the man specifically agreed to the imposed term during the plea proceeding.
By pleading guilty, the man forfeited his claim of ineffective assistance of attorney, raised in his supplemental self defense, to the extent that it does not directly involve the plea bargaining process. Furthermore, the man’s claim is based partially on matter which cannot be reviewed on direct appeal. To the extent that the claim can be reviewed on appeal, the record reveals that the attorney who represented the man during the plea proceeding provided him with effective assistance.
Consequently, the man’s remaining contentions are without merit and the court affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court.
A related case was also presented in court in which another offender appeals from a decision convicting him of rape in the third degree and criminal sexual act in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
The issue arises from the incident where the offender, in the course of his employment as a satellite technician, was granted entry to the complainant’s home to fix the television reception. In the complainant’s bedroom, the offender engaged in oral sexual conduct with the complainant and then engaged in sexual intercourse.
Even if the offender testified that the sexual acts were consensual and did not involve force, the complainant testified that sexual acts were without her consent and involved force.
Upon a jury verdict, the offender was acquitted of rape in the first degree and criminal sexual act in the first degree. However, he was convicted of rape in the third degree and criminal sexual act in the third degree. The court also imposed consecutive terms of imprisonment thereon.
In an independent review of the evidence, the court nevertheless accord great deference to the fact finder’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor. Moreover, the court declines to assume the basis for any implied inconsistencies in mixed jury verdicts. Subsequently, the court is satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence.
Contrary to the offender’s contention, the court properly imposed consecutive sentences of imprisonment. Moreover, the sentence imposed was not excessive.
As a result, the offender’s remaining contentions are without merit and the court affirmed the previous decision.
In court, it is difficult to prove your innocence without having the legal guidance of an expert. Whenever you need help with your lawsuit, Stephen Bilkis and Associates provides legal experts such as Nassau County Criminal Lawyer. Nevertheless, Nassau County Rape Attorney also offers you representation with regards to sexual offense related matter.