People v. David

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. David

2017 NY Slip Op 2676, 149 A.D.3d 776, 49 N.Y.S.3d 629

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

DecidedApril 5, 2017

Docket2013-00783

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 2676 (People v. David) 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. David, 2017 NY Slip Op 2676, 149 A.D.3d 776, 49 N.Y.S.3d 629 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DiMango, J.), rendered January 3, 2013, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that his plea of guilty was involuntary on the ground that the Supreme Court failed to conduct an adequate inquiry into a potential justification defense and because the record as a whole cast significant doubt upon his guilt as a result of such a possible defense. Having failed to object to the inquiry conducted by the court, the defendant did not preserve for appellate review his challenge to the adequacy of the remedial action taken by the court (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 668 [1988]; People v Gomez, 137 AD3d 1161, 1162 [2016]). In any event, the defendant’s contention is without merit. Inquiries were made by both the plea and sentencing courts, which revealed that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered a plea of guilty with a full understanding of the consequences, and which, considering the record as whole, sufficiently eliminated the possibility of a justification defense in this case (People v Lopez, 71 NY2d at 668; People v Gomez, 137 AD3d at 1162).

Leventhal, J.R, Sgroi, Hinds-Radix 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 Supreme Court, Kings County (DiMango, J.), rendered January 3, 2013, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that his plea of guilty was involuntary on the ground that the Supreme Court failed to conduct an adequate inquiry into a potential justification defense and because the record as a whole cast significant doubt upon his guilt as a result of such a possible defense. Having failed to object to the inquiry conducted by the court, the defendant did not preserve for appellate review his challenge to the adequacy of the remedial action taken by the court (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 668 [1988]; People v Gomez, 137 AD3d 1161, 1162 [2016]). In any event, the defendant’s contention is without merit. Inquiries were made by both the plea and sentencing courts, which revealed that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered a plea of guilty with a full understanding of the consequences, and which, considering the record as whole, sufficiently eliminated the possibility of a justification defense in this case (People v Lopez, 71 NY2d at 668; People v Gomez, 137 AD3d at 1162).

Leventhal, J.R, Sgroi, Hinds-Radix and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 2676, 149 A.D.3d 776, 49 N.Y.S.3d 629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-david-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack