People v. Latzer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Latzer

134 A.D.2d 618, 522 N.Y.S.2d 456, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50830

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

DecidedNovember 30, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 134 A.D.2d 618 (People v. Latzer) 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. Latzer, 134 A.D.2d 618, 522 N.Y.S.2d 456, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50830 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeals by the defendant (1) from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Baker, J.), rendered July 12, 1986, convicting him of endangering the welfare of a child (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and [619]*619imposing sentence; and (2) by permission, from an order of the same court, dated November 26, 1986, which denied his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction.

Ordered that the judgment and order are affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

The defendant’s challenge to the judgment of conviction made by way of direct appeal and, by postjudgment motion, is, in essence, a nonjurisdictional attack on the sufficiency of the Grand Jury evidence (cf., People v Pelchat, 62 NY2d 97). By his plea of guilty, the defendant has waived the right to appellate review of the sufficiency of the People’s evidence (see, People v Thomas, 74 AD2d 317, affd 53 NY2d 338; cf., CPL 210.30 [6]). We note, moreover, that defendant does not challenge the validity of his plea of guilty. He therefore may not litigate, by postjudgment motion, issues rendered moot by his knowing and voluntary plea (cf., People v Thomas, supra; see, People v Peck, 24 AD2d 772). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

Appeals by the defendant (1) from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Baker, J.), rendered July 12, 1986, convicting him of endangering the welfare of a child (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and [619]*619imposing sentence; and (2) by permission, from an order of the same court, dated November 26, 1986, which denied his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction.

Ordered that the judgment and order are affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

The defendant’s challenge to the judgment of conviction made by way of direct appeal and, by postjudgment motion, is, in essence, a nonjurisdictional attack on the sufficiency of the Grand Jury evidence (cf., People v Pelchat, 62 NY2d 97). By his plea of guilty, the defendant has waived the right to appellate review of the sufficiency of the People’s evidence (see, People v Thomas, 74 AD2d 317, affd 53 NY2d 338; cf., CPL 210.30 [6]). We note, moreover, that defendant does not challenge the validity of his plea of guilty. He therefore may not litigate, by postjudgment motion, issues rendered moot by his knowing and voluntary plea (cf., People v Thomas, supra; see, People v Peck, 24 AD2d 772). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.2d 618, 522 N.Y.S.2d 456, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50830, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-latzer-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack