People v Jackson

Annotate this Case
People v Jackson 2015 NY Slip Op 02624 Decided on March 27, 2015 Appellate Division, Fourth 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 27, 2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
362 KA 13-02075

[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

v

TAVON JACKSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Seneca County Court (Dennis F. Bender, J.), rendered August 13, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree.



STEVEN J. GETMAN, OVID, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

BARRY L. PORSCH, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WATERLOO, FOR RESPONDENT.



It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 205.25). Defendant's contention that the plea was not knowing and voluntary and that County Court therefore erred in denying his motion to withdraw the plea survives his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Lawrence, 118 AD3d 1501, 1501). We conclude, however, that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion inasmuch as defendant's "allegations in support of the motion [were] belied by [his] statements during the plea proceeding" (People v Williams, 103 AD3d 1128, 1128, lv denied 21 NY3d 915; see People v Farley, 34 AD3d 1229, 1230, lv denied 8 NY3d 880). The record establishes that defendant pleaded guilty voluntarily, that he was satisfied with the representation provided by defense counsel, and that he understood the proceedings.

Entered: March 27, 2015

Frances E. Cafarell

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.