People v Dabo

People v Dabo 2011 NY Slip Op 01712 Decided on March 8, 2011 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 March 8, 2011
Andrias, J.P., Catterson, Moskowitz, Abdus-Salaam, Román, JJ.
4469 4469A 1502/06 4469B 4980/08

[*1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

Salimou Dabo, Defendant-Appellant.




Robert DiDio, Kew Gardens, for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Vincent
Rivellese of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered July 15, 2009, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2½ to 5 years, and judgment of resentence, same court, Justice and date, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of violation of probation, revoking his prior sentence of probation and resentencing him to a concurrent term of 5 years, unanimously affirmed. Purported appeal from judgment, same court (Charles H. Solomon, J.), rendered September 18, 2007, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 5 years' probation, unanimously dismissed as untimely.

Defendant claims that his 2007 weapon possession conviction was invalid. However, defendant did not file a notice of appeal from that conviction, or a request for an extension of time to take an appeal (see CPL 460.30). To the extent any notice of appeal filed in 2009 purports to appeal from the 2007 conviction, that notice is untimely. Therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to review the 2007 conviction. Defendant's appeal from the 2009 resentence following the revocation of probation does not bring up for review the underlying judgment of conviction (see CPL 450.30[3]; People v Ramirez, 5 AD3d 102, 103 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 805 [2004]).

The record demonstrates that defendant's 2009 guilty pleas were knowing, intelligent and [*2]voluntary (see generally People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]). Defendant's claim that the pleas resulted from coercion are contradicted by the allocution record and without merit.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: MARCH 8, 2011

CLERK