People v. Larry B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Larry B.

277 A.D.2d 989, 716 N.Y.S.2d 343, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11580

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

DecidedNovember 13, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 277 A.D.2d 989 (People v. Larry B.) 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. Larry B., 277 A.D.2d 989, 716 N.Y.S.2d 343, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11580 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Adjudication unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: By failing to move to withdraw his plea or vacate the adjudication, defendant has failed to preserve for our review his contention that the plea allocution with respect to the charge of coercion in the first degree (Penal Law § 135.65 [1]) was inadequate (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665). This case does not qualify for the narrow exception to the preservation doctrine because defendant’s plea allocution did not cast significant doubt on defendant’s guilt or otherwise call into question the voluntariness of the plea (see, People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726, rearg denied 86 NY2d 839; People v Lopez, supra, at 666). 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” (People v Lopez, supra, at 666). (Appeal from Adjudication of Jefferson County Court, Clary, J. — Youthful Offender.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Adjudication unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: By failing to move to withdraw his plea or vacate the adjudication, defendant has failed to preserve for our review his contention that the plea allocution with respect to the charge of coercion in the first degree (Penal Law § 135.65 [1]) was inadequate (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665). This case does not qualify for the narrow exception to the preservation doctrine because defendant’s plea allocution did not cast significant doubt on defendant’s guilt or otherwise call into question the voluntariness of the plea (see, People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726, rearg denied 86 NY2d 839; People v Lopez, supra, at 666). 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” (People v Lopez, supra, at 666). (Appeal from Adjudication of Jefferson County Court, Clary, J. — Youthful Offender.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 989, 716 N.Y.S.2d 343, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-larry-b-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack