People v. Dunlop

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dunlop

228 A.D.2d 692, 644 N.Y.2d 981, 644 N.Y.S.2d 981, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7383

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

DecidedJune 24, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 692 (People v. Dunlop) 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. Dunlop, 228 A.D.2d 692, 644 N.Y.2d 981, 644 N.Y.S.2d 981, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7383 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

We reject the defendant’s contention that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered because the Supreme Court failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry to determine whether he was aware that he possessed the potential defenses of extreme emotional disturbance (Penal Law § 125.25 [1] [a]) and justification (Penal Law § 35.15 [2] [a]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, his factual recitation of his commission of the crimes did not indicate that these defenses were viable. Thus, the Supreme Court was not required to make a further inquiry (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662; People v Brewley, 211 AD2d 805).

We further reject the defendant’s contention that the court should not have denied his motion to withdraw his plea without [693]*693conducting a further inquiry. The defendant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his contentions (see, People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536), and the record does not support his contentions that he was coerced into taking the plea or that trial counsel was inadequate. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

We reject the defendant’s contention that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered because the Supreme Court failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry to determine whether he was aware that he possessed the potential defenses of extreme emotional disturbance (Penal Law § 125.25 [1] [a]) and justification (Penal Law § 35.15 [2] [a]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, his factual recitation of his commission of the crimes did not indicate that these defenses were viable. Thus, the Supreme Court was not required to make a further inquiry (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662; People v Brewley, 211 AD2d 805).

We further reject the defendant’s contention that the court should not have denied his motion to withdraw his plea without [693]*693conducting a further inquiry. The defendant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his contentions (see, People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536), and the record does not support his contentions that he was coerced into taking the plea or that trial counsel was inadequate. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 692, 644 N.Y.2d 981, 644 N.Y.S.2d 981, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dunlop-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack