People v McCracken

Annotate this Case
People v McCracken 2016 NY Slip Op 03198 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
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P.
LEONARD B. AUSTIN
SHERI S. ROMAN
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.
2015-02003
(Ind. No. 40/14)

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

v

Isiah J. McCracken, appellant.



Steven A. Feldman, Uniondale, NY, for appellant.

William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Kristen A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), rendered February 26, 2015, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance 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 coerced by the County Court because it participated in the plea negotiations is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise raise this issue before the County Court (see People v Lopez, 109 AD3d 1007, 1007; People v Leshore, 106 AD3d 836, 836; People v Lopez, 34 AD3d 599, 599). In any event, the defendant's claim is belied by the record, which reveals that the defendant acknowledged under oath that nobody was forcing, threatening, or coercing him to plead guilty and he was pleading guilty of his own free will (see People v Tavares, 103 AD3d 820, 821; People v Martinez, 78 AD3d 966, 967; People v Perez, 51 AD3d 1043, 1043). The fact that the County Court participated in the plea negotiations, without more, does not establish that the plea was coerced (see People v Scannell, 134 AD3d 738, 738; McMahon v Hodges, 382 F3d 284, 289 n 5; Damiano v Gaughan, 770 F2d 1, 2; Frank v Blackburn, 646 F2d 873, 882; Toler v Wyrick, 563 F2d 372, 374).

CHAMBERS, J.P., AUSTIN, ROMAN and DUFFY, 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.