People v. Casabuena

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Casabuena

136 A.D.3d 508, 24 N.Y.S.3d 644

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

DecidedFebruary 16, 2016

Docket144 454/10

StatusPublished

This text of 136 A.D.3d 508 (People v. Casabuena) 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. Casabuena, 136 A.D.3d 508, 24 N.Y.S.3d 644 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Martin Marcus, J.), rendered August 16, 2012, as amended September 6 and September 24, 2012, convicting defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the third degree (seven counts), grand larceny in the fourth degree (four counts) and petit larceny, and sentencing her to an aggregate term of three to nine years, and ordering her to execute 52 confessions of judgment, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly required defendant to sign confessions of judgment as a component of her plea (see People v Gress, 4 AD3d 830 [4th Dept 2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 740 [2004]). The People provided the court with information, which defendant did not dispute, as to the specific sum defendant stole from each victim of her fraudulent scheme, and the court had a sufficient factual predicate under People v Consalvo (89 NY2d 140 [1996]) for ordering the defendant to sign the confessions of judgments in those sums (see Penal Law § 60.27 [2]; People v Kim, 91 NY2d 407, 410-411 [1998]). Although neither the Penal Law nor the CPL makes any reference to confessions of judgment, we find that defendant was not prejudiced by the use of this procedure (see also CPL 420.10 [6]). Further, defendant voluntarily agreed to sign these documents. Although defendant now objects to these confessions of judgment, she explicitly declines to have her plea vacated.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Moskowitz, Richter and Gische, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Martin Marcus, J.), rendered August 16, 2012, as amended September 6 and September 24, 2012, convicting defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the third degree (seven counts), grand larceny in the fourth degree (four counts) and petit larceny, and sentencing her to an aggregate term of three to nine years, and ordering her to execute 52 confessions of judgment, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly required defendant to sign confessions of judgment as a component of her plea (see People v Gress, 4 AD3d 830 [4th Dept 2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 740 [2004]). The People provided the court with information, which defendant did not dispute, as to the specific sum defendant stole from each victim of her fraudulent scheme, and the court had a sufficient factual predicate under People v Consalvo (89 NY2d 140 [1996]) for ordering the defendant to sign the confessions of judgments in those sums (see Penal Law § 60.27 [2]; People v Kim, 91 NY2d 407, 410-411 [1998]). Although neither the Penal Law nor the CPL makes any reference to confessions of judgment, we find that defendant was not prejudiced by the use of this procedure (see also CPL 420.10 [6]). Further, defendant voluntarily agreed to sign these documents. Although defendant now objects to these confessions of judgment, she explicitly declines to have her plea vacated.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Moskowitz, Richter and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 A.D.3d 508, 24 N.Y.S.3d 644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-casabuena-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack