People v. Dixon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dixon

224 A.D.2d 543, 638 N.Y.S.2d 152, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1189

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

DecidedFebruary 13, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 224 A.D.2d 543 (People v. Dixon) 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. Dixon, 224 A.D.2d 543, 638 N.Y.S.2d 152, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1189 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Paño Z. Patsalos, J.), rendered April 20, 1995, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends for the first time on appeal that his plea allocution failed to set forth every element of the crime charged and that it set forth every element of the agency defense. Since the defendant did not move to withdraw his plea of guilty or move to vacate the judgment of conviction, this issue is not preserved for appellate review (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662; People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636). In any event, the record of the plea allocution demonstrates that the trial court, when confronted with statements casting doubt upon the defendant’s guilt, properly conducted further inquiry to ensure that the defendant’s plea was knowing and voluntary and that he possessed the necessary criminal intent (see, People v Lopez, supra). Bracken, J. P., Miller, Joy, Hart and Krausman, 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, Orange County (Paño Z. Patsalos, J.), rendered April 20, 1995, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends for the first time on appeal that his plea allocution failed to set forth every element of the crime charged and that it set forth every element of the agency defense. Since the defendant did not move to withdraw his plea of guilty or move to vacate the judgment of conviction, this issue is not preserved for appellate review (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662; People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636). In any event, the record of the plea allocution demonstrates that the trial court, when confronted with statements casting doubt upon the defendant’s guilt, properly conducted further inquiry to ensure that the defendant’s plea was knowing and voluntary and that he possessed the necessary criminal intent (see, People v Lopez, supra). Bracken, J. P., Miller, Joy, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 543, 638 N.Y.S.2d 152, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dixon-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack