People v. Partin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Partin

127 A.D.3d 442, 4 N.Y.S.3d 518

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

DecidedApril 7, 2015

Docket14737 5487/11

StatusPublished

This text of 127 A.D.3d 442 (People v. Partin) 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. Partin, 127 A.D.3d 442, 4 N.Y.S.3d 518 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

*443 Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), rendered September 26, 2012, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of six years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant did not preserve his challenge to his plea allocution, and we find that this claim does not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Peque, 22 NY3d 168, 182 [2013]; see also People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725 [1995]). We decline to review the claim in the interest of justice. As an alternate holding, we find that the plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary, and that the plea allocution, when viewed as a whole and in the context of the factual allegations against defendant, did not cast doubt on defendant’s guilt of burglary.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Concur— Friedman, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz, Richter and Kapnick, JJ.

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

*443 Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), rendered September 26, 2012, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of six years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant did not preserve his challenge to his plea allocution, and we find that this claim does not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Peque, 22 NY3d 168, 182 [2013]; see also People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725 [1995]). We decline to review the claim in the interest of justice. As an alternate holding, we find that the plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary, and that the plea allocution, when viewed as a whole and in the context of the factual allegations against defendant, did not cast doubt on defendant’s guilt of burglary.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Concur— Friedman, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz, Richter and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.3d 442, 4 N.Y.S.3d 518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-partin-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack