People v. Gillens

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gillens

134 A.D.3d 655, 21 N.Y.S.3d 623

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

DecidedDecember 29, 2015

Docket16518 5722/12

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 134 A.D.3d 655 (People v. Gillens) 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. Gillens, 134 A.D.3d 655, 21 N.Y.S.3d 623 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), rendered May 22, 2013, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal *656 possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years’ probation, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that his plea allocution was deficient because the court omitted the word “jury” from its reference to giving up the right to a trial is a claim requiring preservation (see People v Jackson, 123 AD3d 634 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 1202 [2015]), and we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the record establishes the voluntariness of the plea (see People v Tyrell, 22 NY3d 359, 365 [2013]; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 16-19 [1983]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), rendered May 22, 2013, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal *656 possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years’ probation, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that his plea allocution was deficient because the court omitted the word “jury” from its reference to giving up the right to a trial is a claim requiring preservation (see People v Jackson, 123 AD3d 634 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 1202 [2015]), and we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the record establishes the voluntariness of the plea (see People v Tyrell, 22 NY3d 359, 365 [2013]; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 16-19 [1983]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.3d 655, 21 N.Y.S.3d 623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gillens-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack