People v. Howe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Howe

82 A.D.3d 407, 917 N.Y.2d 855

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

DecidedMarch 1, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 82 A.D.3d 407 (People v. Howe) 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. Howe, 82 A.D.3d 407, 917 N.Y.2d 855 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

[408]*408The record establishes that defendant’s plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary, and nothing in the plea allocution minutes casts doubt on his guilt (see People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725 [1995]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662 [1988]). Defendant explicitly admitted his guilt of all requisite elements including intent.

At sentencing, defendant made a statement about his psychiatric history that appeared to be a request for leniency or for better psychiatric treatment in prison. However, he did not move to withdraw his plea. In the absence of such a motion, there was nothing to require a sua sponte inquiry by the court into the plea’s voluntariness (see e.g. People v Riley, 264 AD2d 689 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 906 [2000]). Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest that defendant was mentally incompetent at the time of his plea or had a viable psychiatric defense to the charges. Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Andrias, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

[408]*408The record establishes that defendant’s plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary, and nothing in the plea allocution minutes casts doubt on his guilt (see People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725 [1995]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662 [1988]). Defendant explicitly admitted his guilt of all requisite elements including intent.

At sentencing, defendant made a statement about his psychiatric history that appeared to be a request for leniency or for better psychiatric treatment in prison. However, he did not move to withdraw his plea. In the absence of such a motion, there was nothing to require a sua sponte inquiry by the court into the plea’s voluntariness (see e.g. People v Riley, 264 AD2d 689 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 906 [2000]). Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest that defendant was mentally incompetent at the time of his plea or had a viable psychiatric defense to the charges. Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Andrias, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 407, 917 N.Y.2d 855, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-howe-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack