People v. Herndon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Herndon

191 A.D.2d 248, 595 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2218

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 11, 1993·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Juanita Bing Newton, J.), purportedly rendered July 5, 1990 upon defendant’s plea of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect pursuant to CPL 330.20 and 220.15, unanimously dismissed.

Defendant’s claim, inartfully stated, is that the court below failed to strictly adhere to the mandatory catechism of de[249]*249tailed findings which must be made by the court under CPL 220.15 (5). As such, he purports to appeal from the action of the court below in taking his plea. This is not a legislatively authorized predicate for a criminal appeal (CPL 450.10, 450.15), insofar as it is not a judgment within the meaning of CPL 1.20 (15) and therefore in the absence of a statute expressly authorizing an appeal, there is no right to appeal (People v De Jesus, 54 NY2d 447, 449).

Nor has defendant moved before the court which took the plea to withdraw the plea (see generally, Matter of Lockett v Juviler, 65 NY2d 182), or petitioned for writ of habeas corpus to challenge the legality of his commitment (see generally, People ex rel. Thorpe v Von Holden, 63 NY2d 546). In its present posture, defendant’s commitment is a civil rather than a criminal matter (CPL 220.15 [6]; Matter of Lockett v Juviler, supra). Since we are without jurisdiction to consider defendant’s claim, we do not address the merits of his contentions. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Juanita Bing Newton, J.), purportedly rendered July 5, 1990 upon defendant’s plea of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect pursuant to CPL 330.20 and 220.15, unanimously dismissed.

Defendant’s claim, inartfully stated, is that the court below failed to strictly adhere to the mandatory catechism of de[249]*249tailed findings which must be made by the court under CPL 220.15 (5). As such, he purports to appeal from the action of the court below in taking his plea. This is not a legislatively authorized predicate for a criminal appeal (CPL 450.10, 450.15), insofar as it is not a judgment within the meaning of CPL 1.20 (15) and therefore in the absence of a statute expressly authorizing an appeal, there is no right to appeal (People v De Jesus, 54 NY2d 447, 449).

Nor has defendant moved before the court which took the plea to withdraw the plea (see generally, Matter of Lockett v Juviler, 65 NY2d 182), or petitioned for writ of habeas corpus to challenge the legality of his commitment (see generally, People ex rel. Thorpe v Von Holden, 63 NY2d 546). In its present posture, defendant’s commitment is a civil rather than a criminal matter (CPL 220.15 [6]; Matter of Lockett v Juviler, supra). Since we are without jurisdiction to consider defendant’s claim, we do not address the merits of his contentions. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

People v. Herndon, 191 A.D.2d 248, 595 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2218 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

191 A.D.2d 248 (People v. Herndon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related