People v. Lacey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lacey

49 A.D.3d 1259, 852 N.Y.2d 895

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

DecidedMarch 14, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 49 A.D.3d 1259 (People v. Lacey) 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. Lacey, 49 A.D.3d 1259, 852 N.Y.2d 895 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]). By failing to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution (see People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726 [1995], rearg denied 86 NY2d 839 [1260]*1260[1995]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]; People v Townley, 286 AD2d 885 [2001]). This case does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation doctrine because nothing in the plea allocution cast significant doubt on defendant’s guilt or otherwise called into question the voluntariness of the plea (see Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666; People v Welsher, 270 AD2d 839 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 806 [2000]). Finally, the bargained-for sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present— Martoche, J.P., Lunn, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]). By failing to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution (see People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726 [1995], rearg denied 86 NY2d 839 [1260]*1260[1995]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]; People v Townley, 286 AD2d 885 [2001]). This case does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation doctrine because nothing in the plea allocution cast significant doubt on defendant’s guilt or otherwise called into question the voluntariness of the plea (see Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666; People v Welsher, 270 AD2d 839 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 806 [2000]). Finally, the bargained-for sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present— Martoche, J.P., Lunn, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 1259, 852 N.Y.2d 895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lacey-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack