People v. Faulknor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Faulknor

134 A.D.3d 404, 19 N.Y.S.3d 730

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

DecidedDecember 1, 2015

Docket2295/10 16242A 1986/10 16242

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 134 A.D.3d 404 (People v. Faulknor) 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. Faulknor, 134 A.D.3d 404, 19 N.Y.S.3d 730 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgments, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Judith Lieb, J.), rendered June 25, 2013, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of murder in the second degree and assault in the second degree and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 22 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s unpreserved challenges to the validity of his plea do not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. The record fails to support defendant’s assertion that the sentencing court’s remarks violated the plea agreement (see e.g. People v Jeffrey, 254 AD2d 230 [1st Dept 1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 1033 [1998]). Unlike the situation in People v Mox (20 NY3d 936 [2012]), there was nothing in the actual plea allocution that triggered a duty to inquire into an potential insanity defense, and the fact that there had been proceedings under CPL article 730, which had established defendant’s competency, did not trigger such a duty of inquiry.

Regardless of whether defendant made a valid appeal waiver, we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Moskowitz, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Judgments, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Judith Lieb, J.), rendered June 25, 2013, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of murder in the second degree and assault in the second degree and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 22 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s unpreserved challenges to the validity of his plea do not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. The record fails to support defendant’s assertion that the sentencing court’s remarks violated the plea agreement (see e.g. People v Jeffrey, 254 AD2d 230 [1st Dept 1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 1033 [1998]). Unlike the situation in People v Mox (20 NY3d 936 [2012]), there was nothing in the actual plea allocution that triggered a duty to inquire into an potential insanity defense, and the fact that there had been proceedings under CPL article 730, which had established defendant’s competency, did not trigger such a duty of inquiry.

Regardless of whether defendant made a valid appeal waiver, we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Moskowitz, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.3d 404, 19 N.Y.S.3d 730, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-faulknor-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack