People v. Hoffman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hoffman

210 A.D.2d 995, 621 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13542

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 210 A.D.2d 995 (People v. Hoffman) 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. Hoffman, 210 A.D.2d 995, 621 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13542 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that his recitation of the underlying facts during the plea colloquy called into question the voluntariness of his guilty plea. We cannot conclude that defendant’s plea colloquy "casts significant doubt upon the defendant’s guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea” (People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666; see, People v Gould, 198 AD2d 856, lv denied 83 NY2d 805). Defendant admitted that, at the time of his arrest, he "had consumed enough alcohol to be legally intoxicated”. Therefore, by failing to move to withdraw his guilty plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, defendant failed to preserve for review his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution (see, People v Lopez, supra, at [996]*996666; People v Garrett, 188 AD2d 1055, lv denied 81 NY2d 886). In any event, the plea minutes establish that defendant understood the nature and consequences of his guilty plea and that the plea was voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently made. (Appeal from Judgment of Steuben County Court, Bradstreet, J.—Felony Driving While Intoxicated.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Wesley, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that his recitation of the underlying facts during the plea colloquy called into question the voluntariness of his guilty plea. We cannot conclude that defendant’s plea colloquy "casts significant doubt upon the defendant’s guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea” (People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666; see, People v Gould, 198 AD2d 856, lv denied 83 NY2d 805). Defendant admitted that, at the time of his arrest, he "had consumed enough alcohol to be legally intoxicated”. Therefore, by failing to move to withdraw his guilty plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, defendant failed to preserve for review his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution (see, People v Lopez, supra, at [996]*996666; People v Garrett, 188 AD2d 1055, lv denied 81 NY2d 886). In any event, the plea minutes establish that defendant understood the nature and consequences of his guilty plea and that the plea was voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently made. (Appeal from Judgment of Steuben County Court, Bradstreet, J.—Felony Driving While Intoxicated.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Wesley, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 995, 621 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hoffman-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack