People v. Espinal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Espinal

72 A.D.3d 701, 897 N.Y.S.2d 644

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

DecidedApril 6, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 72 A.D.3d 701 (People v. Espinal) 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. Espinal, 72 A.D.3d 701, 897 N.Y.S.2d 644 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), rendered December 22, 2003, convicting him of attempted conspiracy in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the record demonstrates that his plea of guilty was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]; People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 283 [1992]; People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909, 910-911 [1990]; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 16 [1983]; People v Nixon, 21 NY2d 338 [1967]). To the extent that the defendant’s contention that he was induced to plead guilty by his attorney’s misrepresentation that he would be eligible for shock incarceration is based on matter dehors the record, it may not be reviewed on direct appeal (see People v Haynes, 39 AD3d 562, 564 [2007]). Insofar as we are able to review that claim, it is refuted by the plea minutes, which demonstrate that counsel clearly and unequivocally stated on the record that he did not think that the defendant was eligible for such treatment. Skelos, J.P., Dillon, Angiolillo, Eng and Sgroi, 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 (Buchter, J.), rendered December 22, 2003, convicting him of attempted conspiracy in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the record demonstrates that his plea of guilty was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]; People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 283 [1992]; People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909, 910-911 [1990]; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 16 [1983]; People v Nixon, 21 NY2d 338 [1967]). To the extent that the defendant’s contention that he was induced to plead guilty by his attorney’s misrepresentation that he would be eligible for shock incarceration is based on matter dehors the record, it may not be reviewed on direct appeal (see People v Haynes, 39 AD3d 562, 564 [2007]). Insofar as we are able to review that claim, it is refuted by the plea minutes, which demonstrate that counsel clearly and unequivocally stated on the record that he did not think that the defendant was eligible for such treatment. Skelos, J.P., Dillon, Angiolillo, Eng and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.3d 701, 897 N.Y.S.2d 644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-espinal-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack