People v. Hlinka

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hlinka

99 A.D.2d 497, 470 N.Y.S.2d 444, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16687

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

DecidedJanuary 9, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 99 A.D.2d 497 (People v. Hlinka) 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. Hlinka, 99 A.D.2d 497, 470 N.Y.S.2d 444, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16687 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Copertino, J.), rendered January 18, 1982, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. Defendant contends that when the County Court accepted his plea of guilty there was a failure to ascertain whether his degree of intoxication may have prevented him from forming the necessary intent to commit the crime of robbery in the first degree. However, defendant did not claim that he was drunk, nor that he did not know what he was doing, nor that he did not perceive the criminal nature of his crime (see People v Brown, 57 AD2d 869). Defendant’s statement that he had been drinking for a few days prior to the day he committed the crime did not require the court to make inquiry as to whether defendant was asserting that his intent had been negated by intoxication, and, if so, whether he was voluntarily waiving that potential defense (cf. People v Valente, 77 AD2d 917; People v Quiles, 72 AD2d 610). Accordingly, the court did not err in accepting defendant’s guilty plea. We have considered defendant’s other contention and find it to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Boyers, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Copertino, J.), rendered January 18, 1982, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. Defendant contends that when the County Court accepted his plea of guilty there was a failure to ascertain whether his degree of intoxication may have prevented him from forming the necessary intent to commit the crime of robbery in the first degree. However, defendant did not claim that he was drunk, nor that he did not know what he was doing, nor that he did not perceive the criminal nature of his crime (see People v Brown, 57 AD2d 869). Defendant’s statement that he had been drinking for a few days prior to the day he committed the crime did not require the court to make inquiry as to whether defendant was asserting that his intent had been negated by intoxication, and, if so, whether he was voluntarily waiving that potential defense (cf. People v Valente, 77 AD2d 917; People v Quiles, 72 AD2d 610). Accordingly, the court did not err in accepting defendant’s guilty plea. We have considered defendant’s other contention and find it to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.2d 497, 470 N.Y.S.2d 444, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hlinka-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack