People v. Holt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Holt

210 A.D.2d 994, 621 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13535

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 23, 1994·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: By failing to move to vacate his guilty plea or to vacate the judgment, defendant failed to preserve for review his challenge to the sufficiency of the plea allocution (see, People v Johnson, 82 NY2d 683, 685; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665-666). Defendant’s second plea allocution does not fall within an exception to the preservation [995]*995requirement inasmuch as defendant’s description of the facts did not negate an essential element of robbery in the second degree, injury to a non-participant. In any event, County Court conducted further inquiry to ensure that defendant understood the nature of the charge and that the plea was intelligently entered (see, People v Lopez, supra, at 667-668). By his voluntary guilty plea, defendant waived review of the court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of notice of the Grand Jury proceeding (see, People v Taylor, 65 NY2d 1). (Appeal from Judgment of Cayuga County Court, Corning, J.—Robbery, 2nd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Balio, Lawton, Callahan and Doerr, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: By failing to move to vacate his guilty plea or to vacate the judgment, defendant failed to preserve for review his challenge to the sufficiency of the plea allocution (see, People v Johnson, 82 NY2d 683, 685; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665-666). Defendant’s second plea allocution does not fall within an exception to the preservation [995]*995requirement inasmuch as defendant’s description of the facts did not negate an essential element of robbery in the second degree, injury to a non-participant. In any event, County Court conducted further inquiry to ensure that defendant understood the nature of the charge and that the plea was intelligently entered (see, People v Lopez, supra, at 667-668). By his voluntary guilty plea, defendant waived review of the court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of notice of the Grand Jury proceeding (see, People v Taylor, 65 NY2d 1). (Appeal from Judgment of Cayuga County Court, Corning, J.—Robbery, 2nd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Balio, Lawton, Callahan and Doerr, JJ.

People v. Holt, 210 A.D.2d 994, 621 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13535 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

210 A.D.2d 994 (People v. Holt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related