People v. Beuther

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Beuther

236 A.D.2d 661, 653 N.Y.S.2d 716, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1102

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 236 A.D.2d 661 (People v. Beuther) 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. Beuther, 236 A.D.2d 661, 653 N.Y.S.2d 716, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1102 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Mikoll, J. P.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Bruhn, J.), rendered February 9, 1996, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of escape in the first degree.

Defendant, a State prison inmate, pleaded guilty to escape in the first degree in full satisfaction of a seven-count indictment. On appeal he contends that the plea allocution was insufficient. However, insofar as defendant never moved to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, he has failed to preserve this argument for appellate review (see, People v Colon, 217 AD2d 725). In any event, we reject defendant’s claim that County Court failed to elicit sufficient facts from him so as to establish each and every element of the crime to which he was pleading guilty. As long as an allocution does not negate an essential element of the crime pleaded to, "the failure of a pleading defendant to recite every element of the crime does not necessarily suggest that the plea of guilty is improvident or baseless so as to trigger a duty on the part of the court to inquire further” (People v Washington, 228 AD2d 457; see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666, n 2). Here, there is nothing to indicate that the plea was improvident or baseless. Defendant not only admitted all of the elements of escape in the first degree after they were recited by County Court, but also set forth all of the elements in his own factual recitation (see, Penal Law § 205.15 [1]).

As to defendant’s claim regarding the sufficiency of the Grand Jury minutes, this contention was also waived by the plea of guilty (see, People v Bennett [Franklin], 183 AD2d 905, lv denied 80 NY2d 901, 903). The remaining issues raised by defendant have been examined and rejected for lack of merit.

Crew III, Yesawich Jr., Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Mikoll, J. P.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Bruhn, J.), rendered February 9, 1996, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of escape in the first degree.

Defendant, a State prison inmate, pleaded guilty to escape in the first degree in full satisfaction of a seven-count indictment. On appeal he contends that the plea allocution was insufficient. However, insofar as defendant never moved to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, he has failed to preserve this argument for appellate review (see, People v Colon, 217 AD2d 725). In any event, we reject defendant’s claim that County Court failed to elicit sufficient facts from him so as to establish each and every element of the crime to which he was pleading guilty. As long as an allocution does not negate an essential element of the crime pleaded to, "the failure of a pleading defendant to recite every element of the crime does not necessarily suggest that the plea of guilty is improvident or baseless so as to trigger a duty on the part of the court to inquire further” (People v Washington, 228 AD2d 457; see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666, n 2). Here, there is nothing to indicate that the plea was improvident or baseless. Defendant not only admitted all of the elements of escape in the first degree after they were recited by County Court, but also set forth all of the elements in his own factual recitation (see, Penal Law § 205.15 [1]).

As to defendant’s claim regarding the sufficiency of the Grand Jury minutes, this contention was also waived by the plea of guilty (see, People v Bennett [Franklin], 183 AD2d 905, lv denied 80 NY2d 901, 903). The remaining issues raised by defendant have been examined and rejected for lack of merit.

Crew III, Yesawich Jr., Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 661, 653 N.Y.S.2d 716, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-beuther-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack