People v Anderson (Shepherd)

Annotate this Case
[*1] People v Anderson (Shepherd) 2019 NY Slip Op 50908(U) Decided on June 12, 2019 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on June 12, 2019
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, P.J., Cooper, Edmead, JJ.
570345/14

People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Shepherd Anderson, Defendant-Appellant. 14-432,

In consolidated appeals, defendant appeals from (1) a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Jeanette Rodriguez-Morick, J., at plea; Julio Rodriguez III, J., at sentencing), rendered on March 4, 2014, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of menacing in the third degree and (2) a judgment of the same court (Julio Rodriguez III, J., at plea and sentencing; Raymond L. Bruce, J. at resentencing), rendered November 27, 2015, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgments of conviction (Jeanette Rodriguez-Morick, J. at plea; Julio Rodriguez III, at sentencing), and (Julio Rodriguez III, J., at plea and sentencing; Raymond L. Bruce, J. at resentencing), rendered March 4, 2014, and November 27, 2014, affirmed.

Defendant's challenges to the voluntariness of his pleas are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, are without merit. The record as whole establishes defendant's understanding and affirmative waiver of his constitutional rights, despite the absence of a full enumeration of all the rights waived under Boykin v Alabama (395 US 238 [1969]) (see People v Sougou, 26 NY3d 1052, 1054 [2015]; People v Phinazee, 146 AD3d 531, 532 [2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1085 [2017]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.


I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: June 12, 2019

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.