People v. Baird

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Baird

2017 NY Slip Op 3640, 149 A.D.3d 1597, 51 N.Y.S.3d 472

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

DecidedApril 28, 2017

Docket468 KA 15-00001

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 3640 (People v. Baird) 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. Baird, 2017 NY Slip Op 3640, 149 A.D.3d 1597, 51 N.Y.S.3d 472 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Vincent M. Dinolfo, J.), rendered August 2, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault 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 assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [1]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Fontaine, 144 AD3d 1658, 1658 [2016]). Although defendant’s contention that his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent survives the valid waiver of the right to appeal, defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review inasmuch as he failed to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Bizardi, 130 AD3d 1492, 1492 [2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 992 [2016]). This case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation rule set forth in People v Lopez (71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]), “inasmuch as nothing in the plea colloquy casts significant doubt on defendant’s guilt or the voluntariness of the plea” (People v Lewandowski, 82 AD3d 1602, 1602 [2011]; see Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666; Bizardi, 130 AD3d at 1492).

Present— Centra, J.P., Lindley, DeJoseph, NeMoyer and Scudder, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Vincent M. Dinolfo, J.), rendered August 2, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault 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 assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [1]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Fontaine, 144 AD3d 1658, 1658 [2016]). Although defendant’s contention that his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent survives the valid waiver of the right to appeal, defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review inasmuch as he failed to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Bizardi, 130 AD3d 1492, 1492 [2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 992 [2016]). This case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation rule set forth in People v Lopez (71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]), “inasmuch as nothing in the plea colloquy casts significant doubt on defendant’s guilt or the voluntariness of the plea” (People v Lewandowski, 82 AD3d 1602, 1602 [2011]; see Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666; Bizardi, 130 AD3d at 1492).

Present— Centra, J.P., Lindley, DeJoseph, NeMoyer and Scudder, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 3640, 149 A.D.3d 1597, 51 N.Y.S.3d 472, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-baird-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack