People v. Chapnick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Chapnick

114 A.D.2d 421, 494 N.Y.S.2d 338, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53104

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 15, 1985·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), rendered January 30, 1984, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

A motion made by one who is neither the defendant nor his attorney of record is to be disregarded by the court (Dobbins v County of Erie, 58 AD2d 733; see, People v Felder, 47 NY2d 287). Therefore, a motion made in defendant’s behalf by a third party for withdrawal of defendant’s plea of guilty was properly denied. The failure by the court to conduct an inquiry of defendant before denying the motion did not affect the validity of its order. The purpose of such an inquiry is that of giving defendant a reasonable opportunity to present his contentions. Here, defendant did not make any motion and therefore had no contentions to present (see, People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926). Brown, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), rendered January 30, 1984, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

A motion made by one who is neither the defendant nor his attorney of record is to be disregarded by the court (Dobbins v County of Erie, 58 AD2d 733; see, People v Felder, 47 NY2d 287). Therefore, a motion made in defendant’s behalf by a third party for withdrawal of defendant’s plea of guilty was properly denied. The failure by the court to conduct an inquiry of defendant before denying the motion did not affect the validity of its order. The purpose of such an inquiry is that of giving defendant a reasonable opportunity to present his contentions. Here, defendant did not make any motion and therefore had no contentions to present (see, People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926). Brown, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

People v. Chapnick, 114 A.D.2d 421, 494 N.Y.S.2d 338, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53104 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

114 A.D.2d 421 (People v. Chapnick) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related