People v. Fairclough

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Fairclough

116 A.D.2d 586, 497 N.Y.S.2d 444, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51440

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 116 A.D.2d 586 (People v. Fairclough) 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. Fairclough, 116 A.D.2d 586, 497 N.Y.S.2d 444, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51440 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lombardo, J.), rendered December 14, 1983, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

By failing to make a motion to the court of first instance to withdraw his plea or vacate his conviction, defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review the issue of the sufficiency of his plea allocution (see, People v Hoke, 62 NY2d 1022; People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636). In any event, there is no merit to defendant’s contention regarding the plea allocution. Defendant’s statements made it clear that he had no reasonable possibility of successfully raising a defense of agency (see, People v Argibay, 45 NY2d 45, 53-54). Thus, Criminal Term had no duty to make further inquiry about this possible defense before accepting defendant’s guilty plea. The allocution established the requisite element of criminal [587]*587sale of a controlled substance in the second degree and defendant knowingly and intelligently pleaded guilty thereto (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9).

The sentence imposed was not unduly harsh or excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80; People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816, 817). Gibbons, J. P., Thompson, Brown and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lombardo, J.), rendered December 14, 1983, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

By failing to make a motion to the court of first instance to withdraw his plea or vacate his conviction, defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review the issue of the sufficiency of his plea allocution (see, People v Hoke, 62 NY2d 1022; People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636). In any event, there is no merit to defendant’s contention regarding the plea allocution. Defendant’s statements made it clear that he had no reasonable possibility of successfully raising a defense of agency (see, People v Argibay, 45 NY2d 45, 53-54). Thus, Criminal Term had no duty to make further inquiry about this possible defense before accepting defendant’s guilty plea. The allocution established the requisite element of criminal [587]*587sale of a controlled substance in the second degree and defendant knowingly and intelligently pleaded guilty thereto (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9).

The sentence imposed was not unduly harsh or excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80; People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816, 817). Gibbons, J. P., Thompson, Brown and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.2d 586, 497 N.Y.S.2d 444, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fairclough-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack