People v. Broccoli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Broccoli

2017 NY Slip Op 5451, 152 A.D.3d 536, 54 N.Y.S.3d 875

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

DecidedJuly 5, 2017

Docket2016-06554

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 5451 (People v. Broccoli) 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. Broccoli, 2017 NY Slip Op 5451, 152 A.D.3d 536, 54 N.Y.S.3d 875 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohen, J.), rendered May 6, 2016, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Although a claim that a plea of guilty was not voluntary survives a valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]; People v Solis, 111 AD3d 654, 655 [2013]; People v Joseph, 103 AD3d 665 [2013]), the defendant’s contention that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 220.60 [3]; People v Wolven, 105 AD3d 782 [2013]; People v Elufe, 102 AD3d 982 [2013]). Furthermore, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court had no duty to inquire as to whether he wanted to withdraw his plea since there was nothing in the defendant’s plea allocution that clearly cast significant doubt on his guilt, called into question the voluntariness of the plea, or negated an essential element of the crime (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]). In any event, the record demonstrates that the defendant’s plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 17 [1983]).

Dillon, J.P., Sgroi, Maltese, Barros and Christopher, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohen, J.), rendered May 6, 2016, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Although a claim that a plea of guilty was not voluntary survives a valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]; People v Solis, 111 AD3d 654, 655 [2013]; People v Joseph, 103 AD3d 665 [2013]), the defendant’s contention that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 220.60 [3]; People v Wolven, 105 AD3d 782 [2013]; People v Elufe, 102 AD3d 982 [2013]). Furthermore, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court had no duty to inquire as to whether he wanted to withdraw his plea since there was nothing in the defendant’s plea allocution that clearly cast significant doubt on his guilt, called into question the voluntariness of the plea, or negated an essential element of the crime (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]). In any event, the record demonstrates that the defendant’s plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 17 [1983]).

Dillon, J.P., Sgroi, Maltese, Barros and Christopher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 5451, 152 A.D.3d 536, 54 N.Y.S.3d 875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-broccoli-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack