People v. Benjamin

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Benjamin

24 Misc. 3d 103, 885 N.Y.S.2d 141

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJuly 22, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 24 Misc. 3d 103 (People v. Benjamin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court 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. Benjamin, 24 Misc. 3d 103, 885 N.Y.S.2d 141 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction, rendered February 1, 2008, reversed, on the law, the plea vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

The statements made by defense counsel on defendant’s behalf and in his presence during the plea proceedings, negating the intent element of the underlying governmental obstruction charge and reflecting counsel’s view that defendant was not “doing anything wrong” prior to his arrest, cast sufficient doubt on defendant’s guilt as to trigger the court’s obligation to make further inquiry of the defendant to ensure that defendant understood the nature of the charge and that the plea was intelligently entered (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Lawrence, 192 AD2d 332 [1993], Iv denied 81 NY2d 1075 [1993]; see and compare People v Goldstein, 12 NY3d 295 [2009] [defense counsel’s statements relied upon to establish voluntariness of guilty plea]). The court’s inquiry merely consisted of eliciting terse affirmative responses as to whether defendant was “in fact” guilty to the (unexplained) obstruction charge and whether defendant’s plea was voluntary and of his “own free will.” In this posture, and taking into account the plea proceedings as a whole, it cannot be said that defendant’s guilty plea was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made. We note that defendant’s persuasive challenge to the sufficiency of the plea allocution is properly reviewable on direct appeal (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666).

McKeon, EJ., Schoenfeld and Heitler, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction, rendered February 1, 2008, reversed, on the law, the plea vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

The statements made by defense counsel on defendant’s behalf and in his presence during the plea proceedings, negating the intent element of the underlying governmental obstruction charge and reflecting counsel’s view that defendant was not “doing anything wrong” prior to his arrest, cast sufficient doubt on defendant’s guilt as to trigger the court’s obligation to make further inquiry of the defendant to ensure that defendant understood the nature of the charge and that the plea was intelligently entered (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Lawrence, 192 AD2d 332 [1993], Iv denied 81 NY2d 1075 [1993]; see and compare People v Goldstein, 12 NY3d 295 [2009] [defense counsel’s statements relied upon to establish voluntariness of guilty plea]). The court’s inquiry merely consisted of eliciting terse affirmative responses as to whether defendant was “in fact” guilty to the (unexplained) obstruction charge and whether defendant’s plea was voluntary and of his “own free will.” In this posture, and taking into account the plea proceedings as a whole, it cannot be said that defendant’s guilty plea was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made. We note that defendant’s persuasive challenge to the sufficiency of the plea allocution is properly reviewable on direct appeal (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666).

McKeon, EJ., Schoenfeld and Heitler, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 Misc. 3d 103, 885 N.Y.S.2d 141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-benjamin-nyappterm-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack