People v. Colliton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Colliton

130 A.D.3d 642, 10 N.Y.S.3d 888

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

DecidedJuly 1, 2015

Docket2014-02399

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 130 A.D.3d 642 (People v. Colliton) 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. Colliton, 130 A.D.3d 642, 10 N.Y.S.3d 888 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), rendered February 27, 2014, convicting him of failure to register and verify as a sex offender, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea allocution is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726 [1995]). Moreover, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here, because his plea allocution did not cast significant doubt on his guilt, negate an essential element of the crime, or call into question the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Young, 88 AD3d 918 [2011]). In any event, the plea allocution was sufficient, as it showed that the defendant understood the charge against him and made an intelligent decision to accept the plea (see People v Goldstein, 12 NY3d 295, 301 [2009]; People v Seeber, 4 NY3d 780, 781 [2005]; People v Fooks, 21 NY2d 338, 350 [1967]). Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Cohen, Miller and LaSalle, 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 County Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), rendered February 27, 2014, convicting him of failure to register and verify as a sex offender, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea allocution is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726 [1995]). Moreover, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here, because his plea allocution did not cast significant doubt on his guilt, negate an essential element of the crime, or call into question the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Young, 88 AD3d 918 [2011]). In any event, the plea allocution was sufficient, as it showed that the defendant understood the charge against him and made an intelligent decision to accept the plea (see People v Goldstein, 12 NY3d 295, 301 [2009]; People v Seeber, 4 NY3d 780, 781 [2005]; People v Fooks, 21 NY2d 338, 350 [1967]). Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Cohen, Miller and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 A.D.3d 642, 10 N.Y.S.3d 888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-colliton-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack