People v. Ramsay
Docket 2024-06152
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 02421
- Docket
- 2024-06152
Appeals from County Court judgments convicting the defendant upon guilty pleas and imposing sentences
Summary
The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed two County Court judgments that convicted Orlando Ramsay on multiple drug- and weapon-related charges after he pleaded guilty. Ramsay argued his pleas were not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent and raised ineffective-assistance claims, but the court found those claims unpreserved because he never moved to withdraw his pleas or raised the issue below. The court also held his plea allocution did not cast significant doubt on guilt, and the record independently shows the pleas were valid. Any ineffective-assistance claims not directly related to plea negotiations or sentencing were forfeited by the guilty pleas.
Issues Decided
- Whether the defendant's guilty pleas were knowing, voluntary, and intelligent
- Whether the defendant preserved his claim that his pleas were invalid
- Whether the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel
Court's Reasoning
The court applied preservation doctrine: because the defendant did not move to withdraw his pleas or otherwise raise the voluntariness issue in the trial court, the claim was unpreserved. The court also held the narrow exception to preservation did not apply because the allocution did not cast significant doubt on guilt or negate an essential element. Finally, guilty pleas generally forfeit ineffective-assistance claims except those affecting plea negotiations or sentencing, and the defendant did not establish such a claim on the record.
Authorities Cited
- People v Lopez71 NY2d 662
- People v Bermudez-Cedillos228 AD3d 681
- People v Sougou26 NY3d 1052
Parties
- Appellant
- Orlando Ramsay
- Respondent
- The People of the State of New York
- Judge
- Teresa K. Corrigan
- Judge
- Colleen D. Duffy
- Judge
- Deborah A. Dowling
- Judge
- Janice A. Taylor
- Judge
- Laurence L. Love
Key Dates
- County Court judgments rendered
- 2024-07-08
- Appellate Division decision
- 2026-04-22
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consult criminal defense counsel about post-conviction options
Speak with an attorney to evaluate whether any preserved or collateral remedies remain, such as a CPL 440 motion or federal habeas review, based on claims not waived by the plea.
- 2
Consider motion to withdraw plea if new grounds exist
If there is newly discovered evidence or proof of coercion or ineffective assistance connected to the plea itself, an attorney can assess whether a timely motion to withdraw the plea or other relief is possible.
- 3
Prepare for sentencing consequences
If still serving the sentence, coordinate with counsel about eligibility for post-conviction relief, sentence modification, or reentry planning as appropriate.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court affirmed the convictions and sentences entered after the defendant pleaded guilty, rejecting his challenges to the voluntariness of the pleas and his ineffective-assistance claims.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The defendant, Orlando Ramsay, is directly affected because his convictions and sentences are confirmed; the People’s convictions remain in place.
- Why can't the defendant raise plea-voluntariness now?
- Because he did not move to withdraw his pleas or raise the issue in the trial court, the appellate court considered the claim unpreserved and declined to review it.
- Can he still challenge his conviction on ineffective assistance grounds?
- Most ineffective-assistance claims are forfeited by a guilty plea unless they directly relate to plea negotiations or sentencing; the court found no viable claim on the record presented.
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 Ramsay - 2026 NY Slip Op 02421 People v Ramsay 2026 NY Slip Op 02421 April 22, 2026 Appellate Division, Second Department The People of the State of New York, respondent, v Orlando Ramsay, appellant. (Ind. Nos. 70522/21, 70916/21) Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department Decided on April 22, 2026 2024-06152, 2024-06156 Colleen D. Duffy, J.P. Deborah A. Dowling Janice A. Taylor Laurence L. Love, JJ. Jillian S. Harrington, Staten Island, NY, for appellant. Anne T. Donnelly, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Sarah S. Rabinowitz and Kevin C. King of counsel), for respondent. DECISION & ORDER Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Nassau County (Teresa K. Corrigan, J.), both rendered July 8, 2024, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree under Indictment No. 70522/21, and operating as a major trafficker, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree (two counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (six counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (three counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (three counts), criminal possession of a firearm (three counts), criminal use of drug paraphernalia in the second degree, and conspiracy in the second degree under Indictment No. 70916/21, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences. ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed. The defendant's contention that his pleas of guilty were not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant did not move to withdraw his pleas or otherwise raise the issue in the County Court ( see People v Lopez , 71 NY2d 662, 665; People v Escobargarcia , 237 AD3d 1221, 1222). Moreover, the exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here because the defendant's allocution did not cast significant doubt on his guilt as to the crimes to which he pleaded, negate an essential element of any of the crimes, or call into question the voluntariness of his pleas ( see People v Bermudez-Cedillos , 228 AD3d 681, 682). In any event, the record demonstrates that the defendant's pleas of guilty were knowing, voluntary, and intelligent ( see People v Sougou , 26 NY3d 1052, 1055; People v Escobargarcia , 237 AD3d at 1222). By pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel that did not directly involve the plea negotiation process and sentence ( see CPL 30.30; People v Adams , 237 AD3d 966, 967). In any event, the defendant's contention that he received ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit ( see People v McKinnon , 186 AD3d 1533, 1533; People v Brown , 170 AD3d 878, 879). DUFFY, J.P., DOWLING, TAYLOR and LOVE, JJ., concur. ENTER: Darrell M. Joseph