People v Woods

Annotate this Case
People v Woods 2016 NY Slip Op 03205 Decided on April 27, 2016 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on April 27, 2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
LEONARD B. AUSTIN
JOSEPH J. MALTESE
BETSY BARROS, JJ.
2013-01823
(Ind. No. 2656-11)

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

v

Derek Woods, appellant.



Carol E. Castillo, East Setauket, NY, for appellant.

Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Rosalind C. Gray of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), rendered January 10, 2013, convicting him of rape in the third degree, sexual misconduct, endangering the welfare of a child (two counts), and sexual abuse in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was involuntary is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw his plea (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665). Under the circumstances of this case, we decline to review this issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15[6][a]).

The defendant's contention that he should not have been handcuffed at the sentencing proceeding is also unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Potter, 114 AD3d 968; People v Wallace, 106 AD3d 1034; People v Glover, 96 AD3d 777), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

The defendant's remaining contention has been rendered academic in light of our determination.

DILLON, J.P., AUSTIN, MALTESE and BARROS, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court



Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.