People v. Bilinski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bilinski

286 A.D.2d 945, 730 N.Y.S.2d 757, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8999

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 28, 2001·Published

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: By failing to move to withdraw his plea of guilty or vacate the judgment of conviction, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the plea allocution is factually insufficient (see, People v Sennett, 280 AD2d 998, lv denied 96 NY2d 787). The narrow exception to the preservation doctrine is not applicable here because the plea allocution does not cast significant doubt upon defendant’s guilt (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666). (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Henry, Jr., J. — Felony Driving While Intoxicated.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Wisner, Burns and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: By failing to move to withdraw his plea of guilty or vacate the judgment of conviction, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the plea allocution is factually insufficient (see, People v Sennett, 280 AD2d 998, lv denied 96 NY2d 787). The narrow exception to the preservation doctrine is not applicable here because the plea allocution does not cast significant doubt upon defendant’s guilt (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666). (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Henry, Jr., J. — Felony Driving While Intoxicated.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Wisner, Burns and Lawton, JJ.

People v. Bilinski, 286 A.D.2d 945, 730 N.Y.S.2d 757, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8999 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

286 A.D.2d 945 (People v. Bilinski) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related