People v. Grube

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Grube

68 A.D.3d 606, 891 N.Y.2d 368

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

DecidedDecember 22, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 68 A.D.3d 606 (People v. Grube) 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. Grube, 68 A.D.3d 606, 891 N.Y.2d 368 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Since defendant did not move to withdraw his guilty plea, and since this case does not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662 [1988]), his challenge to the plea is unpreserved and we decline [607]*607to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. The record establishes that defendant’s plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary, and there was nothing in the plea allocution that cast significant doubt on his guilt (see People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725 [1995]). While defendant may have made a comment during his allocution that suggested a possible mitigating circumstance, this comment did not negate the requisite intent for first-degree criminal contempt. We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims. Concur — Gpnzalez, P.J., Tom, Sweeny, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Since defendant did not move to withdraw his guilty plea, and since this case does not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662 [1988]), his challenge to the plea is unpreserved and we decline [607]*607to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. The record establishes that defendant’s plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary, and there was nothing in the plea allocution that cast significant doubt on his guilt (see People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725 [1995]). While defendant may have made a comment during his allocution that suggested a possible mitigating circumstance, this comment did not negate the requisite intent for first-degree criminal contempt. We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims. Concur — Gpnzalez, P.J., Tom, Sweeny, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.D.3d 606, 891 N.Y.2d 368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-grube-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack