People v. Pink

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pink

265 A.D.2d 191, 696 N.Y.S.2d 676, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10161

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 12, 1999·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.), rendered January 10, 1997, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of two counts of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 17 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the court improperly accepted his guilty plea is unpreserved for appellate review because he failed to move either to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction and this case does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665-666). Defendant’s utterances, viewed in their entirety, cast no significant doubt on either the voluntariness of his plea or on his guilt (see, People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725). When defendant equivocated on the issue of intent, the court made a sufficient inquiry and defendant’s responses establish that he understood the nature of the charge and knowingly pleaded guilty to it. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Williams, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.), rendered January 10, 1997, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of two counts of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 17 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the court improperly accepted his guilty plea is unpreserved for appellate review because he failed to move either to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction and this case does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665-666). Defendant’s utterances, viewed in their entirety, cast no significant doubt on either the voluntariness of his plea or on his guilt (see, People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725). When defendant equivocated on the issue of intent, the court made a sufficient inquiry and defendant’s responses establish that he understood the nature of the charge and knowingly pleaded guilty to it. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Williams, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

People v. Pink, 265 A.D.2d 191, 696 N.Y.S.2d 676, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10161 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

265 A.D.2d 191 (People v. Pink) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related