People v. Floyd

2017 NY Slip Op 7814, 155 A.D.3d 1558, 63 N.Y.S.3d 282
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 9, 2017
Docket1158 KA 16-00230
StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 7814 (People v. Floyd) 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. Floyd, 2017 NY Slip Op 7814, 155 A.D.3d 1558, 63 N.Y.S.3d 282 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Livingston County Court (Robert B. Wiggins, J.), rendered January 5, 2016. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [3] [a] [ii]). Defendant’s challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution is not preserved for our review (see People v Newton, 143 AD3d 1286, 1286 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1126 [2016]). Even assuming, arguendo, that this case falls within the rare exception to the preservation requirement, thus triggering County Court’s duty to inquire further to ensure that the plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered (see generally People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]), we conclude that the court’s subsequent inquiry and offer to allow defendant to reject the plea and proceed to trial were sufficient to ensure that the plea was knowing and voluntary (see People v Carter, 147 AD3d 1514, 1516 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1030 [2017]). We note, however, that the certificate of conviction incorrectly identifies the section of the Vehicle and Traffic Law of which defendant was convicted, and must therefore be corrected accordingly (see People v Maloney, 140 AD3d 1782, 1783 [4th Dept 2016]).

Present—Whalen, P.J., Centra, Lindley, Troutman and Winslow, JJ.

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

Related

MALONEY, BRADLEY v. PEOPLE v
140 A.D.3d 1782 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
People v. Lopez
525 N.E.2d 5 (New York Court of Appeals, 1988)
People v. Newton
143 A.D.3d 1286 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
People v. Carter
147 A.D.3d 1514 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2017 NY Slip Op 7814, 155 A.D.3d 1558, 63 N.Y.S.3d 282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-floyd-nyappdiv-2017.