People v Carter

Annotate this Case
People v Carter 2010 NY Slip Op 06720 [76 AD3d 1139] September 30, 2010 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, October 27, 2010

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shaliek Supreme Carter, Appellant.

—[*1] Meave M. Tooher, Hannacroix, for appellant.

P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Kenneth C. Weafer of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lamont, J.), rendered August 17, 2007 in Albany County, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted robbery in the first degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of attempted robbery in the first degree and waived his right to appeal. As agreed, Supreme Court thereafter sentenced him, as a second violent felony offender, to a prison term of 13 years and postrelease supervision of five years. Upon this appeal, defendant solely argues that Supreme Court erred in adjudicating him as a second violent felony offender given legal and constitutional problems with his predicate felony conviction. Defendant, however, did not request a hearing on this issue before Supreme Court; indeed, defense counsel reviewed the predicate felony statement and did not controvert it in any way, acknowledging that there was neither an appeal pursued from the prior conviction nor any present basis for challenging it, and admitting that defendant was a predicate felon. Accordingly, defendant waived his right to challenge the legality of the predicate conviction (see CPL 400.21 [3], [7] [b]; People v Ashley, 71 AD3d 1286, 1287 [2010]; People v Cruz, 56 AD3d 570 [2008]; People v Miller, 284 AD2d 724, 724-725 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 678 [2001]; cf. People v Snyder, 105 AD2d 553, 553-554 [1984]).

Peters, J.P., Spain, Stein, McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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.