People v Williams (Carl)

People v Williams (Carl) 2003 NY Slip Op 51293(U) Decided on September 19, 2003 Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. Appellate Term, First Department

[*1] This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the Official Reports.
Digest-Index Classification:Crimes—Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal Crimes—Appeal—Preservation of Issue for Review
Decided on September 19, 2003
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT:
HON. WILLIAM J. DAVIS, J.P.
HON. PHYLLIS GANGEL-JACOB
HON. MARTIN SCHOENFELD, Justices.
570839/00

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

against

CARL WILLIAMS,

[*2] Defendant-Appellant.

In consolidated appeals, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court, New York County, rendered June 25, 2000 (Walter Tolub, J.) convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of disorderly conduct (Penal Law § 240.20), and imposing sentence. Defendant purports to appeal from an order of the same court entered on or about June 3, 2000 (Martin Murphy, J.) adjourning in contemplation of dismissal a separate criminal action in which defendant was charged, inter alia, with loitering (Penal Law § 240.35).

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from order entered on or about June 3, 2000 (Martin Murphy, J.) dismissed, as nonappealable. The granting of an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal is not a judgment of conviction (see, CPL 170.55[8]) nor is it a determination on the merits (see, Matter of Marie B., 62 NY2d 352, 359) and, accordingly, no defense appeal lies therefrom as of right (see, CPL450.10).

Judgment of conviction rendered June 25, 2000 (Walter Tolub, J.) affirmed.

Defendant's present challenge to the adequacy of his guilty plea entered on the second docket is not preserved as a matter of law since he failed to move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665). [*3]In any event, a plea of guilty will be sustained in the absence of a factual allocution where, as here, there is no indication that the guilty plea assented to by the defendant in the presence of counsel was improvident or baseless (see, People v Winbush, 199 AD2d 447, 448; People v Moore, 91 AD2d 1050).

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.