People v. Irvin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Irvin

305 A.D.2d 1108, 757 N.Y.S.2d 919, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4758

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

DecidedMay 2, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 305 A.D.2d 1108 (People v. Irvin) 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. Irvin, 305 A.D.2d 1108, 757 N.Y.S.2d 919, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4758 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of Ontario County Court (Harvey, J.), entered July 17, 2002, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

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

Memorandum: Defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea of guilty or to vacate the judgment of conviction, and thus his present challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution is not preserved for our review (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]). We reject the contention of defendant that his “plea allocution * * * qualifies] for the narrow, ‘rare case’ exception to the preservation doctrine described in [Lopez]” (People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726 [1995], rearg denied 86 NY2d 839 [1995]). Present — Green, J.P., Wisner, Scudder, Kehoe and Gorski, 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 (Harvey, J.), entered July 17, 2002, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

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

Memorandum: Defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea of guilty or to vacate the judgment of conviction, and thus his present challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution is not preserved for our review (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]). We reject the contention of defendant that his “plea allocution * * * qualifies] for the narrow, ‘rare case’ exception to the preservation doctrine described in [Lopez]” (People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726 [1995], rearg denied 86 NY2d 839 [1995]). Present — Green, J.P., Wisner, Scudder, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 1108, 757 N.Y.S.2d 919, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-irvin-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack