People v. Benton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Benton

143 A.D.2d 526, 533 N.Y.S.2d 32, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10513

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 143 A.D.2d 526 (People v. Benton) 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. Benton, 143 A.D.2d 526, 533 N.Y.S.2d 32, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10513 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law, plea vacated and defendant remanded to Supreme Court, Erie County, for further proceedings on the indictment. Memorandum: Defendant agreed to enter a plea of guilty to robbery in the second degree in satisfaction of a three-count indictment. At the plea colloquy, however, he advised the court that he had no recollection of the alleged criminal activity because he had consumed several pills and a quart each of vodka and wine. Following that revelation the court asked defendant if he recalled anything that happened that day and defendant responded that he did not. The court asked the prosecutor whether the People would consent to a plea pursuant to North Carolina v Alford (400 US 25). The prosecutor consented and the court accepted the Alford plea. That was error. The court should not have proceeded with the plea without first making further inquiry whether defendant was asserting that his intent had been negated by intoxication and, if so, whether he was knowingly waiving that potential

[527]*527defense (People v Tomaino, 134 AD2d 859; People v Quiles, 72 AD2d 610). Where defendant’s recitation casts significant doubt upon his guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea, the trial court has a duty to inquire further to ensure that defendant’s plea is knowing and voluntary (People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666; see, People v Beasley, 25 NY2d 483, 487-488; People v Serrano, 15 NY2d 304, 309). Moreover, the record does not establish that defendant was ever apprised of the nature and character of an Alford plea.

Because the court’s error in accepting the plea requires reversal, we do not reach the remaining issue raised by defendant. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Ostrowski, J. — robbery, second degree.) Present — Den-man, J. P., Green, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law, plea vacated and defendant remanded to Supreme Court, Erie County, for further proceedings on the indictment. Memorandum: Defendant agreed to enter a plea of guilty to robbery in the second degree in satisfaction of a three-count indictment. At the plea colloquy, however, he advised the court that he had no recollection of the alleged criminal activity because he had consumed several pills and a quart each of vodka and wine. Following that revelation the court asked defendant if he recalled anything that happened that day and defendant responded that he did not. The court asked the prosecutor whether the People would consent to a plea pursuant to North Carolina v Alford (400 US 25). The prosecutor consented and the court accepted the Alford plea. That was error. The court should not have proceeded with the plea without first making further inquiry whether defendant was asserting that his intent had been negated by intoxication and, if so, whether he was knowingly waiving that potential

[527]*527defense (People v Tomaino, 134 AD2d 859; People v Quiles, 72 AD2d 610). Where defendant’s recitation casts significant doubt upon his guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea, the trial court has a duty to inquire further to ensure that defendant’s plea is knowing and voluntary (People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666; see, People v Beasley, 25 NY2d 483, 487-488; People v Serrano, 15 NY2d 304, 309). Moreover, the record does not establish that defendant was ever apprised of the nature and character of an Alford plea.

Because the court’s error in accepting the plea requires reversal, we do not reach the remaining issue raised by defendant. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Ostrowski, J. — robbery, second degree.) Present — Den-man, J. P., Green, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 A.D.2d 526, 533 N.Y.S.2d 32, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-benton-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack