People v. Charleston
Opinions
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
True it is, as defendant contends, that deprivation of counsel issues need not be preserved (People v Carmine A., 53 NY2d 816; People v Samuels, 49 NY2d 218, 221; People v Ermo, 47 NY2d 863). However, in this case that question is academic. Defendant pleaded guilty in County Court before the trial commenced without having made a motion to suppress the statements which he now contends were elicited in violation of his right to counsel. Since there is, therefore, neither a trial nor a suppression record, nor, for that matter, any factual record on this subject, appellate review is precluded (People v De Mauro, 48 NY2d 892, 893).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
425 N.E.2d 881 (People v. Charleston) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.