People v. Corbett
Docket 2025-00853
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Criminal Appeal
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02665
- Docket
- 2025-00853
Appeals from four Supreme Court, Kings County judgments convicting the defendant upon guilty pleas and imposing sentences.
Summary
The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed four Supreme Court, Kings County judgments convicting Johnnie Corbett after his guilty pleas to various felonies and imposing sentences. The court held Corbett knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal, which bars review of his claim that the sentences were excessive and most ineffective-assistance claims. Corbett's challenge that his pleas were unknowing survived the waiver but was unpreserved and without merit based on the plea allocutions and record. The court therefore affirmed all four judgments.
Issues Decided
- Whether the defendant validly waived his right to appeal such that appellate review is precluded.
- Whether the defendant's guilty pleas were knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.
- Whether claims of ineffective assistance of counsel survive the guilty pleas and appeal waiver.
- Whether the sentences imposed were excessive.
Court's Reasoning
The court found the record showed a valid, knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of the right to appeal, which bars review of the excessiveness of the sentences and most ineffective-assistance claims. The defendant's claim that his pleas were not knowing or voluntary was unpreserved because he did not move to vacate the pleas in the trial court, and his plea allocutions did not cast significant doubt on guilt or voluntariness. The record also showed the defendant acknowledged satisfaction with counsel and that he entered the pleas freely, so any claim that counsel coerced the pleas lacked support.
Authorities Cited
- People v Sanders25 NY3d 337
- People v Lopez6 NY3d 248
- People v Brown170 AD3d 878
- CPL 470.05CPL 470.05(2)
Parties
- Appellant
- Johnnie Corbett
- Respondent
- The People of the State of New York
- Judge
- Dineen Ann Riviezzo
- Judge
- Valerie Brathwaite Nelson
- Judge
- Paul Wooten
- Judge
- Laurence L. Love
- Judge
- James P. McCormack
- Attorney
- Rosenberg Law Firm (Samantha Imber of counsel)
- Attorney
- Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney (Leonard Joblove, Sholom J. Twersky, Katherine A. Walecka of counsel)
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-29
- Judgments rendered
- 2024-07-16
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider a CPL 440.10 motion
If new, non-frivolous evidence or statutory grounds exist, the defendant may move in the trial court to vacate the plea or sentence under CPL 440.10, but preservation and timeliness rules apply.
- 2
Consult criminal defense counsel
Discuss whether any ineffective-assistance or constitutional claims exist that could affect voluntariness of the plea and whether collateral review is viable.
- 3
Review plea and sentencing records
Obtain and review the plea allocution and sentencing transcripts to identify any possible preserved errors or factual bases for postconviction relief.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court affirmed the defendant's convictions and sentences entered after guilty pleas, finding his appeal waiver valid and his challenges unpreserved or without merit.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The decision affects defendant Johnnie Corbett and upholds the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court.
- Why can't the court review the sentence claims?
- Because Corbett validly waived his right to appeal, that waiver prevents the appellate court from reviewing claims that the sentences were excessive.
- Can the defendant still raise ineffective-assistance claims?
- Most ineffective-assistance claims are foreclosed by the guilty pleas and appeal waiver unless the claim shows counsel's performance affected the voluntariness of the pleas; the court found no such problem here.
- What happens next?
- The affirmed judgments remain in force; any further relief would require a preserved motion in the trial court or limited collateral challenges subject to statutory rules.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
People v Corbett - 2026 NY Slip Op 02665 People v Corbett 2026 NY Slip Op 02665 April 29, 2026 Appellate Division, Second Department The People of the State of New York, respondent, v Johnnie Corbett, appellant. (Ind. Nos. 2669/19, 1125/20, 70938/22, 72219/24) Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department Decided on April 29, 2026 2025-00853, 2025-00856, 2025-00859, 2025-00860 Valerie Brathwaite Nelson, J.P. Paul Wooten Laurence L. Love James P. McCormack, JJ. Rosenberg Law Firm, Brooklyn, NY (Samantha Imber of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Sholom J. Twersky, and Katherine A. Walecka of counsel), for respondent. DECISION & ORDER Appeals by the defendant from four judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dineen Ann Riviezzo, J.), all rendered July 16, 2024, convicting him of grand larceny in the second degree and conspiracy in the fourth degree under Indictment No. 2669/19, robbery in the third degree under Indictment No. 1125/20, burglary in the third degree under Indictment No. 70938/22, and grand larceny in the third degree under Indictment No. 72219/24, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences. ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed. The record demonstrates that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal ( see People v Sanders , 25 NY3d 337, 341; People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 254). The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that the sentences imposed were excessive ( see People v Lopez , 6 NY3d at 255-256). The defendant's contention that his pleas were not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent survives his valid appeal waiver ( see People v Brown , 170 AD3d 878, 879). However, this contention is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant did not move to vacate his pleas or otherwise raise this issue before the Supreme Court ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v McDonnell , 214 AD3d 826, 827; People v Marinos , 209 AD3d 875, 875). Moreover, "the 'rare case' exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here because the defendant's allocution did not cast significant doubt on his guilt, negate an essential element of the crime, or call into question the voluntariness of his plea" ( People v Ramos , 164 AD3d 922, 922-923, quoting People v Lopez , 71 NY2d 662, 666). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit, as the record establishes that the defendant's pleas were made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently ( see People v McIntyre , 208 AD3d 1365, 1366). By pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited any claims of ineffective assistance of counsel that did not directly involve the plea-negotiation process ( see People v Brown , 170 AD3d at 879). Moreover, "the defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, except to the extent that the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel may have affected the voluntariness of his pleas" ( id. ; see People v Bennett , 115 AD3d 973, 974). Thus, the defendant's waiver precludes our review of the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel to the extent that it is based upon counsel's handling of two motions, inter alia, to controvert search warrants ( see People v Smith , 178 AD3d 965, 966). To the extent that the defendant contends that the ineffective assistance of counsel affected the voluntariness of his pleas, the record demonstrates that the defendant received a very advantageous plea, and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel ( see People v McIntyre , 208 AD3d at 1366; People v Brown , 170 AD3d at 879). The defendant's contention that he was coerced into pleading guilty by his attorney's ineffectiveness is belied by his statements during the plea proceeding, in which he acknowledged under oath that he was satisfied with his counsel's representation, that he had not been forced into pleading guilty, and that he was entering the pleas freely and voluntarily ( see People v Bennett , 115 AD3d at 974; People v Douglas , 83 AD3d 1092, 1093). BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., WOOTEN, LOVE and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur. ENTER: Darrell M. Joseph