People v. Resto-Perez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Resto-Perez

82 A.D.3d 532, 918 N.Y.2d 345

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

DecidedMarch 15, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 82 A.D.3d 532 (People v. Resto-Perez) 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. Resto-Perez, 82 A.D.3d 532, 918 N.Y.2d 345 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of his guilty plea is unpreserved (People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662 [1988]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. While the court’s brief remarks on the day of the plea were less measured than they should have been, there was nothing coercive, biased or otherwise improper about the court’s exploration of “the strength of the People’s case, the potential sentence to which defendant was exposed under the indictment, and the favorableness of the plea bargain” (People v Crafton, 159 AD2d 271, 271-272 [1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 733 [1990]). In light of all the relevant factors, including, among other things, the reasonableness of the bargain and defendant’s experience (see People v Garcia, 92 NY2d 869 [1998]), we find that defendant’s plea was voluntarily made. The court did not exhibit undue hostility to defendant or improperly urge him to plead guilty.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Freedman and AbdusSalaam, JJ.

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

Defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of his guilty plea is unpreserved (People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662 [1988]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. While the court’s brief remarks on the day of the plea were less measured than they should have been, there was nothing coercive, biased or otherwise improper about the court’s exploration of “the strength of the People’s case, the potential sentence to which defendant was exposed under the indictment, and the favorableness of the plea bargain” (People v Crafton, 159 AD2d 271, 271-272 [1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 733 [1990]). In light of all the relevant factors, including, among other things, the reasonableness of the bargain and defendant’s experience (see People v Garcia, 92 NY2d 869 [1998]), we find that defendant’s plea was voluntarily made. The court did not exhibit undue hostility to defendant or improperly urge him to plead guilty.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Freedman and AbdusSalaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 532, 918 N.Y.2d 345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-resto-perez-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack