People v. Everson
Docket 102 KA 22-01359
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 02507
- Docket
- 102 KA 22-01359
Appeal from a judgment of conviction entered after defendant pleaded guilty mid-trial to attempted murder in the second degree.
Summary
The Fourth Department affirmed defendant George Everson’s conviction for second-degree attempted murder after he pleaded guilty mid-trial. The court held that Everson validly waived his right to appeal, which bars review of his speedy-trial and sentence-length claims. His challenge that the plea was not knowing and voluntary survives the waiver but is unpreserved because he never moved to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment. Other claims — inadequate grand jury notice, denial of mistrial, and ineffective assistance — were forfeited by the plea, procedurally barred, or must be raised in postconviction proceedings.
Issues Decided
- Whether defendant validly waived his right to appeal by pleading guilty.
- Whether the guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered.
- Whether defendant was denied his statutory right to a speedy trial.
- Whether defendant received adequate notice of the grand jury proceedings and whether the court erred in denying a mistrial or failing to appoint substitute counsel at sentencing.
Court's Reasoning
The court found a valid appeal waiver in the plea colloquy and thus could not review claims covered by that waiver, like the speedy-trial and sentencing challenges. Although voluntariness challenges are not barred by an appeal waiver, Everson failed to preserve that claim by not moving to withdraw his plea or vacate the conviction. Grand-jury notice and mistrial claims were forfeited by the guilty plea or waived by failure to timely move, and alleged ineffectiveness largely involves matters outside the record that must be raised in a CPL 440 motion.
Authorities Cited
- People v Johnson229 AD3d 1300 (4th Dept 2024), lv denied 42 NY3d 1020 (2024)
- People v Lopez6 NY3d 248 (2006)
- CPL 190.50(5)
- People v Lacey225 AD3d 1276 (4th Dept 2024), lv denied 41 NY3d 1003 (2024)
Parties
- Appellant
- George Everson
- Respondent
- The People of the State of New York
- Judge
- Matthew J. Doran
- Attorney
- Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society (Bradley E. Keem of counsel)
- Attorney
- William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney (Elisabeth Dannan of counsel)
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-24
- Judgment rendered
- 2022-07-15
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider CPL 440 motion
If there are factual matters outside the trial record (e.g., ineffective assistance of counsel), file a CPL article 440 motion to seek vacatur of the conviction or a new trial.
- 2
Consult appellate/postconviction counsel
Speak with counsel experienced in postconviction relief to evaluate preserved and unpreserved claims and determine whether further appeals or motions are appropriate.
- 3
Evaluate leave to Court of Appeals
If there is a colorable legal question of statewide significance, consider applying for leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals within applicable time limits.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction after finding Everson’s guilty plea included a valid waiver of his right to appeal and several claims were forfeited or unpreserved.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- Defendant George Everson is directly affected; the People’s conviction and sentence stand as affirmed by the appellate court.
- What happens next for the defendant?
- Everson can pursue postconviction relief where appropriate, such as a CPL 440 motion raising matters outside the record, or seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals if jurisdiction and grounds exist.
- Can the voluntariness claim still be reviewed?
- The voluntariness claim survives the appeal waiver but was not preserved because Everson did not move to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment; he would need to raise it in a postconviction proceeding.
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 Everson - 2026 NY Slip Op 02507 People v Everson 2026 NY Slip Op 02507 April 24, 2026 Appellate Division, Fourth Department THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v GEORGE EVERSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department Decided on April 24, 2026 102 KA 22-01359 Present: Bannister, J.P., Montour, Smith, Nowak, And Delconte, JJ. FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (BRADLEY E. KEEM OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (ELISABETH DANNAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Matthew J. Doran, J.), rendered July 15, 2022. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted murder in the second degree. It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted murder in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 125.25 [1]). Defendant pleaded guilty mid-trial, after the People had presented the testimony of several witnesses. Contrary to defendant's contention, we conclude that he validly waived his right to appeal ( see People v Johnson , 229 AD3d 1300, 1301 [4th Dept 2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 1020 [2024]). Defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal precludes our review of his contention that he was denied his statutory right to a speedy trial ( see People v Rouse , 244 AD3d 1783, 1783 [4th Dept 2025]; People v Kelly , 231 AD3d 1515, 1516 [4th Dept 2024], lv denied 43 NY3d 931 [2025]; cf. People v Banks , 240 AD3d 1307, 1308 [4th Dept 2025]) as well as his challenge to the severity of the sentence ( see People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 255-256 [2006]). Defendant contends that his guilty plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered. Although defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of the plea survives the valid waiver of the right to appeal, it is not preserved for our review because defendant "did not move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction" ( People v Lacey , 225 AD3d 1276, 1276 [4th Dept 2024], lv denied 41 NY3d 1003 [2024]). Defendant's challenge does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement ( see People v Lopez , 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]). To the extent that defendant contends that he received inadequate notice of the grand jury proceedings, that contention was forfeited by his guilty plea ( see People v Vanvleet , 126 AD3d 1359, 1360 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1012 [2015]). Further, defendant waived that contention inasmuch as he "did not move to dismiss the indictment on that ground within five days after he was arraigned" ( People v Crosby , 215 AD3d 1225, 1226 [4th Dept 2023], lv denied 40 NY3d 933 [2023] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see CPL 190.50 [5] [c]; People v Linder , 170 AD3d 1555, 1557 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 1071 [2019]). By pleading guilty, defendant forfeited his contention that County Court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial ( see People v Adams , 201 AD3d 1311, 1312 [4th Dept 2022], lv denied 38 NY3d 1007 [2022]). To the extent that defendant's contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel survives his plea and valid waiver of the right to appeal, that contention involves matters outside the record on appeal and therefore must be raised by way of a motion pursuant to CPL article 440 ( see People v Rausch , 126 AD3d 1535, 1535-1536 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1149 [2016]). Defendant also contends that the court erred in failing to provide substitute counsel at sentencing. To the extent that defendant's contention survives the plea and valid waiver of the right to appeal ( see People v Morris , 94 AD3d 1450, 1451 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 976 [2012]), we conclude that it lacks merit inasmuch as defendant's "nonspecific complaint [about] defense counsel [at sentencing] did not constitute a request for substitution of counsel and thus did not trigger the need for an inquiry into whether good cause existed for substitution" ( People v Matthews , 142 AD3d 1354, 1355 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1125 [2016]). Entered: April 24, 2026 Ann Dillon Flynn