People v. Nolasco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Nolasco

2017 NY Slip Op 2824, 149 A.D.3d 875, 49 N.Y.S.3d 917

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

DecidedApril 12, 2017

Docket2015-02432

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 2824 (People v. Nolasco) 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. Nolasco, 2017 NY Slip Op 2824, 149 A.D.3d 875, 49 N.Y.S.3d 917 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Zuckerman, J.), rendered October 2, 2014, convicting him of attempted robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that his plea of guilty was not voluntarily entered because the County Court refused to accept the plea when he initially refused to admit the facts underlying the crime of attempted robbery in the second degree. Contrary to the People’s contention, this argument is not precluded by any valid waiver of the defendant’s right to appeal, since it implicates the voluntariness of the defendant’s plea (see People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Smith, 146 AD3d 904 [2017]; People v Lovick, 127 AD3d 1108, 1109 [2015]). The People correctly contend, however, that since upon further inquiry into the facts by the prosecutor and inquiry by the court, the defendant readily and without hesitation admitted to the facts underlying the crime to which he pleaded and since the defendant did not challenge this remedial action, his present contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d at 668; People v Lovick, 127 AD3d at 1109; People v Antoine, 59 AD3d 560 [2009]; People v Holman, 33 AD3d 815 [2006]) and, in any event, without merit.

Rivera, J.P., Austin, Roman, Hinds-Radix and Connolly, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Zuckerman, J.), rendered October 2, 2014, convicting him of attempted robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that his plea of guilty was not voluntarily entered because the County Court refused to accept the plea when he initially refused to admit the facts underlying the crime of attempted robbery in the second degree. Contrary to the People’s contention, this argument is not precluded by any valid waiver of the defendant’s right to appeal, since it implicates the voluntariness of the defendant’s plea (see People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Smith, 146 AD3d 904 [2017]; People v Lovick, 127 AD3d 1108, 1109 [2015]). The People correctly contend, however, that since upon further inquiry into the facts by the prosecutor and inquiry by the court, the defendant readily and without hesitation admitted to the facts underlying the crime to which he pleaded and since the defendant did not challenge this remedial action, his present contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d at 668; People v Lovick, 127 AD3d at 1109; People v Antoine, 59 AD3d 560 [2009]; People v Holman, 33 AD3d 815 [2006]) and, in any event, without merit.

Rivera, J.P., Austin, Roman, Hinds-Radix and Connolly, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 2824, 149 A.D.3d 875, 49 N.Y.S.3d 917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-nolasco-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack