People v. Elliot

137 A.D.3d 715, 27 N.Y.S.3d 386
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 31, 2016
Docket693 5465/10
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 137 A.D.3d 715 (People v. Elliot) 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. Elliot, 137 A.D.3d 715, 27 N.Y.S.3d 386 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

*716 Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa C. Jackson, J.), rendered July 10, 2013, as amended July 29, 2013, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of predatory sexual assault, and sentencing him to a term of 13 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s contention that his plea was rendered involuntary by the court’s allegedly coercive statements about his potential sentence is unpreserved because his remarks at sentencing neither clearly requested to withdraw the plea nor articulated the ground he raises on appeal (see People v Ali, 96 NY2d 840 [2001]; People v Tabares, 52 AD3d 437 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 835 [2008]), and we decline to review defendant’s contention in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the court’s reference to a probable sentence upon conviction after trial, although ill-advised, did not render the plea involuntary (see People v Cornelio, 227 AD2d 248 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 982 [1996]; see also Bordenkircher v Hayes, 434 US 357, 364 [1978]).

Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal, which forecloses review of his suppression claim (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256-257 [2006]). The court’s colloquy adequately described the waiver of his right to appeal and did not “lump [ ] it into the panoply of rights normally forfeited upon a guilty plea” (People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337, 341 [2015]). Moreover, defendant signed a written waiver, which he had discussed with counsel, that adequately supplemented the oral colloquy (see People v Lewis, 127 AD3d 569 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 931 [2015]). As an alternative holding, we find that defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied for all of the reasons stated by the court.

Concur—Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Manzanet-Daniels, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Hillaire
2026 NY Slip Op 00324 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2026)
People v. Bristel
210 A.D.3d 481 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Elliot v. Kirkpatrick
S.D. New York, 2020
People v. Rodriguez
2019 NY Slip Op 7692 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
People v. Farray
2019 NY Slip Op 4193 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
People v. Ackridge
2018 NY Slip Op 7319 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
People v. Moore
140 A.D.3d 1091 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
137 A.D.3d 715, 27 N.Y.S.3d 386, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-elliot-nyappdiv-2016.