People v. Ball

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ball

174 A.D.2d 991, 572 N.Y.S.2d 151, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8903

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

DecidedJune 7, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 174 A.D.2d 991 (People v. Ball) 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. Ball, 174 A.D.2d 991, 572 N.Y.S.2d 151, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8903 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s plea was knowingly and voluntarily made. At the plea colloquy, although defendant first denied that he was present at the scene of the crime, he ultimately admitted facts constituting all of the essential elements of the crime of kidnapping in the first degree. He stated that he was at the scene of the crime, that he brought the gun to the scene and gave it to his accomplice, that he choked the victim for the purpose of preventing his discovery or escape, and that the victim was shot by his accomplice. Unlike the case of People v Serrano (15 NY2d 304), cited by defendant, here, defendant’s final recitation of the facts did not indicate that he might not be guilty of the crime charged.

We do not reach defendant’s second issue on appeal, whether his suppression motion was improperly denied, because the record shows that defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal on that issue (see, People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1). (Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Buckley, J.—Kidnapping, 1st Degree.) Present —Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s plea was knowingly and voluntarily made. At the plea colloquy, although defendant first denied that he was present at the scene of the crime, he ultimately admitted facts constituting all of the essential elements of the crime of kidnapping in the first degree. He stated that he was at the scene of the crime, that he brought the gun to the scene and gave it to his accomplice, that he choked the victim for the purpose of preventing his discovery or escape, and that the victim was shot by his accomplice. Unlike the case of People v Serrano (15 NY2d 304), cited by defendant, here, defendant’s final recitation of the facts did not indicate that he might not be guilty of the crime charged.

We do not reach defendant’s second issue on appeal, whether his suppression motion was improperly denied, because the record shows that defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal on that issue (see, People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1). (Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Buckley, J.—Kidnapping, 1st Degree.) Present —Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 A.D.2d 991, 572 N.Y.S.2d 151, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ball-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack