People v. Gaither

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gaither

153 A.D.2d 587, 544 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10673

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

DecidedAugust 7, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 153 A.D.2d 587 (People v. Gaither) 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. Gaither, 153 A.D.2d 587, 544 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10673 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), both rendered March 26, 1987, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under indictment No. 4703/85, and attempted robbery in the first degree under indictment No. 2430/86, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant contends that the trial court should not have accepted his guilty plea on indictment No. 4703/85 without [588]*588further inquiry into whether he was aware of his potential agency defense and was knowingly waiving it. Although the alleged error was properly preserved for appellate review (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666; People v Cooks, 67 NY2d 100, 103, n 1), we find his contention in this regard to be without merit. We do not find that an agency defense was clearly suggested by the defendant’s factual recitation. Therefore, the plea allocution did not give rise to a duty on the part of the trial court to inquire further to ensure that the defendant’s plea was knowing and voluntary (see, People v Lopez, supra; People v Beasley, 25 NY2d 483, 487-488). Moreover, the record demonstrates that the plea allocution satisfied the basic requirements of People v Harris (61 NY2d 9). Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), both rendered March 26, 1987, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under indictment No. 4703/85, and attempted robbery in the first degree under indictment No. 2430/86, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant contends that the trial court should not have accepted his guilty plea on indictment No. 4703/85 without [588]*588further inquiry into whether he was aware of his potential agency defense and was knowingly waiving it. Although the alleged error was properly preserved for appellate review (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666; People v Cooks, 67 NY2d 100, 103, n 1), we find his contention in this regard to be without merit. We do not find that an agency defense was clearly suggested by the defendant’s factual recitation. Therefore, the plea allocution did not give rise to a duty on the part of the trial court to inquire further to ensure that the defendant’s plea was knowing and voluntary (see, People v Lopez, supra; People v Beasley, 25 NY2d 483, 487-488). Moreover, the record demonstrates that the plea allocution satisfied the basic requirements of People v Harris (61 NY2d 9). Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 A.D.2d 587, 544 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10673, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gaither-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack