People v. Gould

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gould

207 A.D.2d 989, 617 N.Y.S.2d 687, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10200

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 207 A.D.2d 989 (People v. Gould) 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. Gould, 207 A.D.2d 989, 617 N.Y.S.2d 687, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10200 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant pleaded guilty to reckless endangerment in the first degree. We reject the contention of defendant that County Court erred in accepting his guilty plea without a sufficient factual allocution. Because defendant pleaded guilty to a crime lesser than the crimes initially charged, a factual allocution was not necessary (see, People v Pelchat, 62 NY2d 97, 108; People v Clairborne, 29 NY2d 950, 951; People v Nunez, 177 AD2d 656).

We have reviewed the remaining contention raised by defendant and conclude that it is without merit (see, People v [990]*990Taylor, 65 NY2d 1; see also, CPL 220.60; People v Mayers, 74 NY2d 931). (Appeal from Judgment of Cattaraugus County Court, Himelein, J.—Reckless Endangerment, 1st Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Balio, Wesley, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant pleaded guilty to reckless endangerment in the first degree. We reject the contention of defendant that County Court erred in accepting his guilty plea without a sufficient factual allocution. Because defendant pleaded guilty to a crime lesser than the crimes initially charged, a factual allocution was not necessary (see, People v Pelchat, 62 NY2d 97, 108; People v Clairborne, 29 NY2d 950, 951; People v Nunez, 177 AD2d 656).

We have reviewed the remaining contention raised by defendant and conclude that it is without merit (see, People v [990]*990Taylor, 65 NY2d 1; see also, CPL 220.60; People v Mayers, 74 NY2d 931). (Appeal from Judgment of Cattaraugus County Court, Himelein, J.—Reckless Endangerment, 1st Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Balio, Wesley, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.D.2d 989, 617 N.Y.S.2d 687, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gould-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack