People v. Parish

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Parish

182 A.D.2d 1104, 582 N.Y.S.2d 886, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6979

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

DecidedApril 24, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 182 A.D.2d 1104 (People v. Parish) 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. Parish, 182 A.D.2d 1104, 582 N.Y.S.2d 886, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6979 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The record establishes that defendant was advised of his rights and that his Alford plea (see, North Carolina v Alford, 400 US 25) was entered knowingly, voluntarily and with an understanding of its consequences (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662; People v Nixon, 21 NY2d 338, 353, cert denied sub nom. Robinson v New York, 393 US 1067; People v Serrano, 15 NY2d 304, 310; People v Myers, 151 AD2d 1002, lv denied 74 NY2d 815). Although the prosecutor did not set forth on the record the proof that the People would present at trial, defendant’s counsel acknowledged that he had reviewed the evidence with defendant and that it was his opinion, and that of defendant, that there was a "substantial likelihood” that the evidence might result in a conviction of the more serious charge of sodomy in the first degree. (Appeal from Judgment of Jefferson County Court, Clary, J. — Sexual Abuse, 1st Degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Lawton, Boehm and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The record establishes that defendant was advised of his rights and that his Alford plea (see, North Carolina v Alford, 400 US 25) was entered knowingly, voluntarily and with an understanding of its consequences (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662; People v Nixon, 21 NY2d 338, 353, cert denied sub nom. Robinson v New York, 393 US 1067; People v Serrano, 15 NY2d 304, 310; People v Myers, 151 AD2d 1002, lv denied 74 NY2d 815). Although the prosecutor did not set forth on the record the proof that the People would present at trial, defendant’s counsel acknowledged that he had reviewed the evidence with defendant and that it was his opinion, and that of defendant, that there was a "substantial likelihood” that the evidence might result in a conviction of the more serious charge of sodomy in the first degree. (Appeal from Judgment of Jefferson County Court, Clary, J. — Sexual Abuse, 1st Degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Lawton, Boehm and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 A.D.2d 1104, 582 N.Y.S.2d 886, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6979, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-parish-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack