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

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 210 A.D.2d 994 (People v. Holt) 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. 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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 994, 621 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-holt-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack