because the interrogating officers allegedly threatened her that “should she not say anything than [sic] she would receive the ‘Death Penalty’” and “yelled” at her “until she was hysterically crying.” Petitioner’s C.P.L. § 440.10 Motion at Point 2. The motion court denied this claim based on the mandatory procedural rule set forth in C.P.L. § 440.10(2)(c), finding that “[sufficient facts appear in the record to have permitted review of [this] issue[] on direct appeal.” C.P.L. § 440.10 Order at 3. Because Petitioner failed to raise the evidentiary issue before the Appellate Division, the motion court found, she was “not entitled to collateral review[.]” Id. (citing N.Y. CRIM. Proo. Law § 440.10(2)(c)); People v. Cooks, 67 N.Y.2d 100, 103, 500 N.Y.S.2d 503, 491 N.E.2d 676 (N.Y.1986) (<HOLDING>). As noted above in this Decision and Order,
holding that the defendants oral motion challenging the venire was insufficient to preserve the issue for review holding that defendants failure to appeal the voluntariness of a plea constitutes waiver of the issue on subsequent appeal holding a general ruling by the trial court is insufficient to preserve a specific issue for appellate review holding defendant failed to preserve burden of proof issue for appeal holding that dismissal of claim attacking sufficiency of a plea allocution by defendants failure to preserve the issue otherwise available on direct appeal for such review