People v. Ellington
Docket CR-22-2139
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 02482
- Docket
- CR-22-2139
Appeal from a judgment convicting defendant upon his guilty plea to attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree
Summary
The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed defendant Jerry Ellington's conviction and agreed-upon sentence after a guilty plea to attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree. Ellington had pleaded guilty in satisfaction of an indictment charging multiple contraband-related offenses and admitted his involvement; County Court imposed a 1½ to 3-year term to run consecutive to his existing sentence. The appellate court found his challenges to plea voluntariness and counsel performance unpreserved and, on the merits, concluded the plea colloquy and record showed the plea was knowing and voluntary. The court also held the agreed sentence was the minimum authorized by law and not excessive.
Issues Decided
- Whether defendant's guilty plea was knowing and voluntary
- Whether ineffective assistance of counsel rendered the plea involuntary
- Whether the agreed-upon consecutive sentence of 1½ to 3 years was unduly harsh or exceeded statutory minimums
Court's Reasoning
The court found the challenges unpreserved because defendant did not file a timely postallocution motion despite having time to do so. On the merits, the plea colloquy showed County Court informed defendant of trial-related rights, defendant affirmed satisfaction with counsel and understanding of consequences, and defendant admitted his conduct, so the plea was knowing and voluntary. The sentence was the minimum permitted by the relevant Penal Law provisions, so it was not excessive.
Authorities Cited
- People v Hendrie242 AD3d 1258 (3d Dept 2025)
- People v Leroux234 AD3d 1214 (3d Dept 2025)
- Penal Law§§ 70.06, 110.05, 205.25
Parties
- Appellant
- Jerry Ellington
- Respondent
- The People of the State of New York
- Judge
- Fisher, J.
- Attorney
- Erin C. Morigerato
- Attorney
- J. Anthony Jordan
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-23
- Judgment date
- 2022-05-20
- Calendar/hearing date
- 2026-03-23
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider filing a CPL 440 motion
If ineffective assistance claims rely on matters outside the trial record, defendant should consult counsel about a CPL article 440 motion to raise those issues with supporting proof.
- 2
Consult appellate counsel about further review
If defendant wishes to pursue additional appeal to the Court of Appeals, he should promptly consult counsel about leave applications and applicable deadlines.
- 3
Prepare to serve sentence as affirmed
Because the judgment and consecutive sentence were affirmed, defendant and prison officials should proceed with execution of the 1½ to 3-year term unless further relief is obtained.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court affirmed Ellington's conviction and the agreed 1½ to 3-year consecutive prison sentence, finding his plea voluntary and his preservation arguments lacking.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- Defendant Jerry Ellington is directly affected; the People of the State of New York prevail and the sentence remains in effect.
- Why didn't the court address ineffective assistance of counsel fully?
- The court said the ineffective-assistance claim was unpreserved because Ellington did not file a timely postallocution motion, and issues about matters outside the record are more properly raised in a CPL article 440 motion.
- Can this decision be appealed further?
- Ellington may seek further review, but the appellate division affirmed; any further appeal to the Court of Appeals would require permission and is not guaranteed.
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 Ellington - 2026 NY Slip Op 02482 People v Ellington 2026 NY Slip Op 02482 April 23, 2026 Appellate Division, Third Department The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jerry Ellington, Appellant. Decided and Entered:April 23, 2026 CR-22-2139 Calendar Date: March 23, 2026 Before: Clark, J.P., Ceresia, Fisher, Powers And Corcoran, JJ. Erin C. Morigerato, Albany, for appellant. J. Anthony Jordan, District Attorney, Fort Edward (Taylor Fitzsimmons of counsel), for respondent. Fisher, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Washington County (Kelly McKeighan, J.), rendered May 20, 2022, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree. In October 2021, an individual visiting defendant, an incarcerated individual, was found to have drugs and two razor blades in her possession. After an investigation revealed that defendant was involved in the plan to smuggle those items into the facility, he was charged by indictment with three counts of promoting prison contraband in the first degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and promoting prison contraband in the second degree. Defendant agreed to plead guilty, in full satisfaction of the indictment, to the reduced charge of attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree. He did so upon the understanding that he would be sentenced, as a second felony offender, to a prison term of 1½ to 3 years that would run consecutive to the prison sentence he was already serving. County Court imposed the agreed-upon sentence, and defendant appeals. We affirm. Defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his plea, as well as his related claim that ineffective assistance of counsel impacted upon the voluntariness of that plea, are unpreserved for our review given his apparent failure to raise those issues in an appropriate postallocution motion despite having had ample time to do so ( see People v Hendrie , 242 AD3d 1258, 1258 [3d Dept 2025]; People v Guilder , 235 AD3d 1044, 1045-1046 [3d Dept 2025], lv denied 43 NY3d 963 [2025]). FN1 Our review of the record leaves us satisfied that the narrow exception to the preservation requirement was not triggered ( see People v Hendrie , 242 AD3d at 1258; People v Leroux , 234 AD3d 1214, 1214-1215 [3d Dept 2025]). We would reject the claims, in any event, as "the record reflects that County Court sufficiently informed defendant of the trial-related rights he was forfeiting by pleading guilty and defendant affirmed that he had sufficient time to confer with counsel, was satisfied with counsel's representation and understood the consequences of entering a guilty plea," after which defendant admitted to committing the crime at issue ( People v Hawkins , 207 AD3d 814, 815-816 [3d Dept 2022]; see People v Hendrie , 242 AD3d at 1258; People v Leroux , 234 AD3d at 1214-1215). As such, we perceive no reason to take corrective action in the interest of justice. Lastly, we reject defendant's contention that the agreed-upon prison sentence received by defendant was unduly harsh or severe, as it was the minimum allowed by law ( see Penal Law §§ 70.06 [3] [e]; [4] [b]; 110.05 [6]; 205.25 [1]; People v Lilliard , 206 AD3d 1241, 1244 [3d Dept 2022]). We have examined defendant's remaining contentions and have found them to be academic or without merit. Clark, J.P., Ceresia, Powers and Corcoran, JJ., concur. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. Footnotes Footnote 1 To the extent that defendant's claim of ineffective assistance is premised upon matters outside of the record like counsel's alleged failure to sufficiently investigate potential defenses, such "is more appropriately raised in a CPL article 440 motion" ( People v Ward , 161 AD3d 1488, 1489 [3d Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 942 [2018]).