People v. Marcus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Marcus

278 A.D.2d 670, 717 N.Y.S.2d 739, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13353

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

DecidedDecember 21, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 670 (People v. Marcus) 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. Marcus, 278 A.D.2d 670, 717 N.Y.S.2d 739, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13353 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Spain, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Otsego County (Scarzafava, J.), rendered October 19, 1999, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted burglary in the second degree.

In satisfaction of a four-count indictment which included a charge of burglary in the second degree, defendant pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of attempted burglary in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]) and was sentenced pursuant to the plea bargain. Defendant now appeals claiming that the plea allocution did not establish that he intentionally aided the attempted burglary. Having failed to move to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment, defendant has not preserved his challenge to the sufficiency of the plea allocution (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665; People v Valenti, 264 AD2d 904, 906, lv denied 94 NY2d 926). Moreover, this is not one of those “rare case[s] * * * where the defendant’s recitation of the facts * * * clearly casts significant doubt upon the defendant’s guilt” (People v Lopez, supra, at 666). Indeed, the element of intent was established by defendant’s admission that he was aware that the other person in the building had the intent to take items from that property and that defendant was outside the building to help that individual (cf., People v Ocasio, 265 AD2d 675, 676-677).

Crew III, J. P., Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Spain, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Otsego County (Scarzafava, J.), rendered October 19, 1999, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted burglary in the second degree.

In satisfaction of a four-count indictment which included a charge of burglary in the second degree, defendant pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of attempted burglary in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]) and was sentenced pursuant to the plea bargain. Defendant now appeals claiming that the plea allocution did not establish that he intentionally aided the attempted burglary. Having failed to move to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment, defendant has not preserved his challenge to the sufficiency of the plea allocution (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665; People v Valenti, 264 AD2d 904, 906, lv denied 94 NY2d 926). Moreover, this is not one of those “rare case[s] * * * where the defendant’s recitation of the facts * * * clearly casts significant doubt upon the defendant’s guilt” (People v Lopez, supra, at 666). Indeed, the element of intent was established by defendant’s admission that he was aware that the other person in the building had the intent to take items from that property and that defendant was outside the building to help that individual (cf., People v Ocasio, 265 AD2d 675, 676-677).

Crew III, J. P., Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 670, 717 N.Y.S.2d 739, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-marcus-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack