People v. Gillegbower

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gillegbower

143 A.D.3d 479, 38 N.Y.S.3d 420, 2016 NY Slip Op 06552

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

DecidedOctober 6, 2016

Docket1844 5281/12

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 143 A.D.3d 479 (People v. Gillegbower) 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. Gillegbower, 143 A.D.3d 479, 38 N.Y.S.3d 420, 2016 NY Slip Op 06552 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), rendered February 28, 2013, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to a term of nine months, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenges to his plea do not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Conceicao, 26 NY3d 375, 382 [2015]), and we decline to review these unpreserved claims in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the record as a whole establishes that the plea was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made, even if the enumeration of defendant’s rights under Boykin v Alabama (395 US 238 [1969]) was incomplete (see People v Sougou, 26 NY3d 1052 [2015]). Defendant’s complaint about the sequence of events at his allocution, in which the court elicited factual admissions before advising defendant of his Boykin rights, is unavailing (see Matter of Leon T., 23 AD3d 256 [1st Dept 2005]).

Concur — Renwick, J.P., Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), rendered February 28, 2013, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to a term of nine months, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenges to his plea do not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Conceicao, 26 NY3d 375, 382 [2015]), and we decline to review these unpreserved claims in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the record as a whole establishes that the plea was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made, even if the enumeration of defendant’s rights under Boykin v Alabama (395 US 238 [1969]) was incomplete (see People v Sougou, 26 NY3d 1052 [2015]). Defendant’s complaint about the sequence of events at his allocution, in which the court elicited factual admissions before advising defendant of his Boykin rights, is unavailing (see Matter of Leon T., 23 AD3d 256 [1st Dept 2005]).

Concur — Renwick, J.P., Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 A.D.3d 479, 38 N.Y.S.3d 420, 2016 NY Slip Op 06552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gillegbower-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack