People v. Dunkins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dunkins

231 A.D.2d 587, 647 N.Y.S.2d 107, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9229

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

DecidedSeptember 16, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 231 A.D.2d 587 (People v. Dunkins) 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. Dunkins, 231 A.D.2d 587, 647 N.Y.S.2d 107, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9229 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.), rendered December 20, 1993, convicting him of rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree, and burglary in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

[588]*588Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On appeal, the defendant argues that his arrest was without probable cause, that the lineup was improperly conducted, and that the court improperly denied his pro se application to remove assigned counsel and to assign new counsel. However, the defendant waived appellate review of these issues as part of his negotiated plea agreement (see, People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1). Moreover, appellate review was foreclosed when the defendant agreed to withdraw all motions, including his pro se motion, as part of the plea agreement. He also forfeited his right to appellate review of the issues raised in his suppression motion by entering a plea of guilty before the conclusion of the suppression hearing (see, People v Fernandez, 67 NY2d 686).

By failing to move to withdraw his guilty plea, the defendant has failed to preserve his present claim that the plea was involuntarily entered (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636). In any event, the record clearly demonstrates that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently pleaded guilty (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Santucci, 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, Queens County (Clabby, J.), rendered December 20, 1993, convicting him of rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree, and burglary in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

[588]*588Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On appeal, the defendant argues that his arrest was without probable cause, that the lineup was improperly conducted, and that the court improperly denied his pro se application to remove assigned counsel and to assign new counsel. However, the defendant waived appellate review of these issues as part of his negotiated plea agreement (see, People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1). Moreover, appellate review was foreclosed when the defendant agreed to withdraw all motions, including his pro se motion, as part of the plea agreement. He also forfeited his right to appellate review of the issues raised in his suppression motion by entering a plea of guilty before the conclusion of the suppression hearing (see, People v Fernandez, 67 NY2d 686).

By failing to move to withdraw his guilty plea, the defendant has failed to preserve his present claim that the plea was involuntarily entered (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636). In any event, the record clearly demonstrates that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently pleaded guilty (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D.2d 587, 647 N.Y.S.2d 107, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dunkins-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack