People v. Diggs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Diggs

224 A.D.2d 311, 638 N.Y.S.2d 439, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1260

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 224 A.D.2d 311 (People v. Diggs) 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. Diggs, 224 A.D.2d 311, 638 N.Y.S.2d 439, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1260 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena Uviller, J.), rendered January 16,1992, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to a conditional discharge and a $200 fine, unanimously affirmed.

The People’s representation that the complainant, a tourist from abroad, was available to testify at defendant’s trial, which defendant asserted to be false when the complainant did not appear at the trial of defendant’s accomplice, does not require vacatur of defendant’s plea, where, as the sentencing court found, the statement was made in good faith, and the plea was accepted upon admissions establishing defendant’s guilt and otherwise appears to have been knowing, voluntary and intelligent (see, People v Jones, 44 NY2d 76, 81-82, cert denied 439 US 846). Defendant’s other claim that his plea was coerced by the court is unpreserved as a matter of law, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. If we were to review it, we would find that the comments in question were a balanced discussion of the risks of going to trial. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena Uviller, J.), rendered January 16,1992, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to a conditional discharge and a $200 fine, unanimously affirmed.

The People’s representation that the complainant, a tourist from abroad, was available to testify at defendant’s trial, which defendant asserted to be false when the complainant did not appear at the trial of defendant’s accomplice, does not require vacatur of defendant’s plea, where, as the sentencing court found, the statement was made in good faith, and the plea was accepted upon admissions establishing defendant’s guilt and otherwise appears to have been knowing, voluntary and intelligent (see, People v Jones, 44 NY2d 76, 81-82, cert denied 439 US 846). Defendant’s other claim that his plea was coerced by the court is unpreserved as a matter of law, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. If we were to review it, we would find that the comments in question were a balanced discussion of the risks of going to trial. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 311, 638 N.Y.S.2d 439, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-diggs-nyappdiv-1996.