People v. Hutson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hutson

309 A.D.2d 1255, 765 N.Y.S.2d 562, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10136

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

DecidedOctober 2, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 309 A.D.2d 1255 (People v. Hutson) 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. Hutson, 309 A.D.2d 1255, 765 N.Y.S.2d 562, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10136 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of Ontario County Court (Doran, J.), entered June 4, 2002, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, forgery in the second degree (two counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of two counts each of forgery in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.10 [1]), criminal solicitation in the third degree (§ 100.08), petit larceny (§ 155.25) and endangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10 [1]). Defendant contends that the plea allocution was factually insufficient with respect to the counts of criminal solicitation and endangering the welfare of a child. Defendant failed to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction with respect to those counts and therefore failed to preserve his contention for our review (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]). Defendant’s recitation of the facts underlying those crimes does not cast significant doubt upon defendant’s guilt or otherwise call into question the voluntariness of the plea with respect to those crimes (see id. at 666), and thus the rare case exception to the preservation doctrine does not apply (see People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 727 [1995], rearg denied 86 NY2d 839 [1995]). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Scudder, Gorski and Hayes, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of Ontario County Court (Doran, J.), entered June 4, 2002, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, forgery in the second degree (two counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of two counts each of forgery in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.10 [1]), criminal solicitation in the third degree (§ 100.08), petit larceny (§ 155.25) and endangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10 [1]). Defendant contends that the plea allocution was factually insufficient with respect to the counts of criminal solicitation and endangering the welfare of a child. Defendant failed to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction with respect to those counts and therefore failed to preserve his contention for our review (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]). Defendant’s recitation of the facts underlying those crimes does not cast significant doubt upon defendant’s guilt or otherwise call into question the voluntariness of the plea with respect to those crimes (see id. at 666), and thus the rare case exception to the preservation doctrine does not apply (see People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 727 [1995], rearg denied 86 NY2d 839 [1995]). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Scudder, Gorski and Hayes, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 A.D.2d 1255, 765 N.Y.S.2d 562, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hutson-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack