People v. Munoz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Munoz

15 A.D.3d 315, 789 N.Y.S.2d 882, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1942

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 15 A.D.3d 315 (People v. Munoz) 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. Munoz, 15 A.D.3d 315, 789 N.Y.S.2d 882, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1942 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, J.), rendered April 16, 2003, convicting defendant, upon his [316]*316plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of three years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s unpreserved challenge to the validity of his plea does not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725 [1995]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662 [1988]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to reach this claim in the interest of justice, we would find that the record establishes the voluntariness of the plea and that there was nothing in defendant’s factual allocution that cast doubt on his guilt. The court sufficiently explained the elements of the crime to which defendant pleaded guilty, and his guilt could be readily inferred from bis allocution (see People v McGowen, 42 NY2d 905 [1977]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Sullivan, Ellerin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, J.), rendered April 16, 2003, convicting defendant, upon his [316]*316plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of three years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s unpreserved challenge to the validity of his plea does not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725 [1995]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662 [1988]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to reach this claim in the interest of justice, we would find that the record establishes the voluntariness of the plea and that there was nothing in defendant’s factual allocution that cast doubt on his guilt. The court sufficiently explained the elements of the crime to which defendant pleaded guilty, and his guilt could be readily inferred from bis allocution (see People v McGowen, 42 NY2d 905 [1977]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Sullivan, Ellerin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.3d 315, 789 N.Y.S.2d 882, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1942, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-munoz-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack