People v. Asabal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Asabal

256 A.D.2d 520, 682 N.Y.S.2d 862, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13665

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 21, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 256 A.D.2d 520 (People v. Asabal) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Asabal, 256 A.D.2d 520, 682 N.Y.S.2d 862, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13665 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schulman, J.), both rendered October 17, 1996, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under Indictment No. 12573/95 and burglary in the second degree under Indictment No. 589/96, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

Having failed to make a motion to withdraw his pleas pursuant to CPL 220.60 (3) or a motion to vacate the judgments of conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10, the defendant’s challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea allocutions is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636). We reject the defendant’s contention that his allocutions cast significant doubt on his guilt such that the court was required to conduct an inquiry to ensure that the pleas were intelligently entered, and its failure to do so allows him to challenge the sufficiency of the allocutions directly on appeal (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662). In any event, the record reveals that the court did conduct a sufficient inquiry, and that inquiry demonstrated that any defense of intoxication was not viable (cf., People v Simone, 179 AD2d 694; People v Braman, 136 AD2d 382). The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Miller, J. P., Pizzuto, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur..

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schulman, J.), both rendered October 17, 1996, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under Indictment No. 12573/95 and burglary in the second degree under Indictment No. 589/96, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

Having failed to make a motion to withdraw his pleas pursuant to CPL 220.60 (3) or a motion to vacate the judgments of conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10, the defendant’s challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea allocutions is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636). We reject the defendant’s contention that his allocutions cast significant doubt on his guilt such that the court was required to conduct an inquiry to ensure that the pleas were intelligently entered, and its failure to do so allows him to challenge the sufficiency of the allocutions directly on appeal (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662). In any event, the record reveals that the court did conduct a sufficient inquiry, and that inquiry demonstrated that any defense of intoxication was not viable (cf., People v Simone, 179 AD2d 694; People v Braman, 136 AD2d 382). The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Miller, J. P., Pizzuto, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur..

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 520, 682 N.Y.S.2d 862, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-asabal-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack