People v. Barber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Barber

106 A.D.2d 860, 483 N.Y.S.2d 538, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21761

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

DecidedDecember 14, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 106 A.D.2d 860 (People v. Barber) 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. Barber, 106 A.D.2d 860, 483 N.Y.S.2d 538, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21761 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment entered on a plea of guilty to second degree murder. Prior to entering the plea, defendant filed a notice of intent to assert the defense of mental disease or defect (Penal Law, § 30.05). Defense counsel subsequently sought a ruling on the admissibility of statements made by defendant during a psychiatric examination in the event that the insanity defense was abandoned and defendant chose to testify. The court held that defendant’s statements could be used for impeachment purposes only, as prior inconsistent statements. Defendant now attempts to challenge that ruling. Defendant is precluded from raising this issue on appeal since his guilty plea, intelligently and voluntarily entered, operated as a waiver of all nonjurisdictional defects (People v Thill, 52 NY2d 1020; People v Gilliam, 65 AD2d 533). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Armer, J. — murder, second degree.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Doerr, Denman, Boomer and O’Donnell, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment entered on a plea of guilty to second degree murder. Prior to entering the plea, defendant filed a notice of intent to assert the defense of mental disease or defect (Penal Law, § 30.05). Defense counsel subsequently sought a ruling on the admissibility of statements made by defendant during a psychiatric examination in the event that the insanity defense was abandoned and defendant chose to testify. The court held that defendant’s statements could be used for impeachment purposes only, as prior inconsistent statements. Defendant now attempts to challenge that ruling. Defendant is precluded from raising this issue on appeal since his guilty plea, intelligently and voluntarily entered, operated as a waiver of all nonjurisdictional defects (People v Thill, 52 NY2d 1020; People v Gilliam, 65 AD2d 533). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Armer, J. — murder, second degree.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Doerr, Denman, Boomer and O’Donnell, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 A.D.2d 860, 483 N.Y.S.2d 538, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-barber-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack