People v. Davis

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Davis

21 N.E.3d 568, 24 N.Y.3d 1012

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 20, 2014

StatusPublished

Cited by19 cases

This text of 21 N.E.3d 568 (People v. Davis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Davis, 21 N.E.3d 568, 24 N.Y.3d 1012 (N.Y. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant failed to bring a motion to withdraw his plea under CPL 220.60 (3) or a motion to vacate the judgment of conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10. Nor did his factual recitation negate the intent element of the crime to which he pleaded guilty. His plea therefore does not qualify for the “rare case” exception to the preservation requirement under People v Lopez (71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]). Consequently, defendant’s challenge to the factual sufficiency of his allocution “was properly rejected by the Appellate Division and its order upholding the plea and conviction should be affirmed” (People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726 [1995]).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott, Rivera and Abdus-Salaam concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant failed to bring a motion to withdraw his plea under CPL 220.60 (3) or a motion to vacate the judgment of conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10. Nor did his factual recitation negate the intent element of the crime to which he pleaded guilty. His plea therefore does not qualify for the “rare case” exception to the preservation requirement under People v Lopez (71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]). Consequently, defendant’s challenge to the factual sufficiency of his allocution “was properly rejected by the Appellate Division and its order upholding the plea and conviction should be affirmed” (People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726 [1995]).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott, Rivera and Abdus-Salaam concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 N.E.3d 568, 24 N.Y.3d 1012, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-davis-ny-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack