People v. Benefield

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Benefield

17 A.D.3d 244, 793 N.Y.S.2d 398, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4197

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

DecidedApril 21, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 17 A.D.3d 244 (People v. Benefield) 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. Benefield, 17 A.D.3d 244, 793 N.Y.S.2d 398, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4197 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berk-man, J.), rendered July 23, 2003, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of enterprise corruption, and sentencing him to a term of 2 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s unpreserved challenge to the validity of his plea does not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662 [1988]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to reach this claim in the interest of justice, we would find that the record establishes the voluntariness of the plea and there was nothing in the allocution that cast significant doubt on defendant’s guilt. The court sufficiently explained the elements of enterprise corruption, and defendant’s factual recitation did not negate any of those elements. On the contrary, defendant’s guilt could be readily inferred from his allocution (see People v McGowen, 42 NY2d 905 [1977]).

[245]*245We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Marlow, J.P., Ellerin, Nardelli, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berk-man, J.), rendered July 23, 2003, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of enterprise corruption, and sentencing him to a term of 2 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s unpreserved challenge to the validity of his plea does not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662 [1988]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to reach this claim in the interest of justice, we would find that the record establishes the voluntariness of the plea and there was nothing in the allocution that cast significant doubt on defendant’s guilt. The court sufficiently explained the elements of enterprise corruption, and defendant’s factual recitation did not negate any of those elements. On the contrary, defendant’s guilt could be readily inferred from his allocution (see People v McGowen, 42 NY2d 905 [1977]).

[245]*245We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Marlow, J.P., Ellerin, Nardelli, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 244, 793 N.Y.S.2d 398, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-benefield-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack