People v. Neuner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Neuner

90 A.D.3d 1535, 934 N.Y.2d 897

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

DecidedDecember 23, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 90 A.D.3d 1535 (People v. Neuner) 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. Neuner, 90 A.D.3d 1535, 934 N.Y.2d 897 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of driving while intoxicated as a class E felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]; § 1193 [1] [c] [former (i)]). Defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, and he therefore failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, “[t]he plea allocution does not ‘clearly cast[ ] significant doubt upon the defendant’s guilt or otherwise call[ ] into question the voluntariness of the plea,’ and thus defendant’s contention does not fall within the rare case exception to the preservation doctrine” (People v Loper, 38 AD3d 1178, 1179 [2007], quoting Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666; see People v Farnsworth, 32 AD3d 1176 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 867 [2006]). Present — Smith, J.E, Peradotto, Lindley, Green and Martoche, JJ.

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

Memorandum:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of driving while intoxicated as a class E felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]; § 1193 [1] [c] [former (i)]). Defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, and he therefore failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, “[t]he plea allocution does not ‘clearly cast[ ] significant doubt upon the defendant’s guilt or otherwise call[ ] into question the voluntariness of the plea,’ and thus defendant’s contention does not fall within the rare case exception to the preservation doctrine” (People v Loper, 38 AD3d 1178, 1179 [2007], quoting Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666; see People v Farnsworth, 32 AD3d 1176 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 867 [2006]). Present — Smith, J.E, Peradotto, Lindley, Green and Martoche, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 A.D.3d 1535, 934 N.Y.2d 897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-neuner-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack