People v. Marvin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Marvin

285 A.D.2d 987, 727 N.Y.S.2d 682, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6970

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

DecidedJuly 3, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 285 A.D.2d 987 (People v. Marvin) 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. Marvin, 285 A.D.2d 987, 727 N.Y.S.2d 682, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6970 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea of guilty or to vacate the judgment convicting him of attempted course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree (Penal Law § 110.00, former § 130.80 [a]) and thus failed to preserve for our review his contention that the plea allocution was factually insufficient (see, People v Crooks, 278 AD2d 931, lv denied 96 NY2d 782). The statements of defendant in this case do not cast significant doubt on the voluntariness of the plea, and therefore his challenge to the plea allocution does not qualify for the narrow, rare case exception to the preservation doctrine (see, People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726, rearg denied 86 NY2d 839; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666). The valid waiver by defendant of the right to appeal encompasses his contention concerning the severity of the sentence (see, People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737; People v Crooks, supra, at 931-932). In any event, the sentence, to which defendant agreed as part of the plea bargain, is neither unduly harsh nor severe (see, People v Crooks, supra, at 932; People v Welsher, 270 AD2d 839, lv denied 95 NY2d 806). (Appeal from Judgment of Cattaraugus County Court, Himelein, J.— Attempted Course of Sexual Conduct Against Child, 2nd Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Pine, Scudder and Burns, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea of guilty or to vacate the judgment convicting him of attempted course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree (Penal Law § 110.00, former § 130.80 [a]) and thus failed to preserve for our review his contention that the plea allocution was factually insufficient (see, People v Crooks, 278 AD2d 931, lv denied 96 NY2d 782). The statements of defendant in this case do not cast significant doubt on the voluntariness of the plea, and therefore his challenge to the plea allocution does not qualify for the narrow, rare case exception to the preservation doctrine (see, People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726, rearg denied 86 NY2d 839; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666). The valid waiver by defendant of the right to appeal encompasses his contention concerning the severity of the sentence (see, People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737; People v Crooks, supra, at 931-932). In any event, the sentence, to which defendant agreed as part of the plea bargain, is neither unduly harsh nor severe (see, People v Crooks, supra, at 932; People v Welsher, 270 AD2d 839, lv denied 95 NY2d 806). (Appeal from Judgment of Cattaraugus County Court, Himelein, J.— Attempted Course of Sexual Conduct Against Child, 2nd Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Pine, Scudder and Burns, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D.2d 987, 727 N.Y.S.2d 682, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6970, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-marvin-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack