People v. Richards

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Richards

49 A.D.3d 405, 853 N.Y.2d 344

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

DecidedMarch 18, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 49 A.D.3d 405 (People v. Richards) 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. Richards, 49 A.D.3d 405, 853 N.Y.2d 344 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant did not move to withdraw his plea, and since this case does not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662 [1988]), his challenge to the plea is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. The plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary, and there was nothing in the allocution that negated [406]*406any element of the crimes or cast significant doubt on defendant’s guilt (see People v Seeber, 4 NY3d 780 [2005]; People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725 [1995]; see also People v McGowen, 42 NY2d 905 [1977]).

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion, without granting a hearing, since he failed to establish standing to challenge the seizure of the property. Although defendant was entitled to rely on the prosecution’s version of the incident to establish standing (see People v Burton, 6 NY3d 584 [2006]), that version failed to support such a claim (see People v Ramirez-Portoreal, 88 NY2d 99, 110 [1996]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Williams, Buckley and Acosta, JJ.

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

Defendant did not move to withdraw his plea, and since this case does not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662 [1988]), his challenge to the plea is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. The plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary, and there was nothing in the allocution that negated [406]*406any element of the crimes or cast significant doubt on defendant’s guilt (see People v Seeber, 4 NY3d 780 [2005]; People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725 [1995]; see also People v McGowen, 42 NY2d 905 [1977]).

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion, without granting a hearing, since he failed to establish standing to challenge the seizure of the property. Although defendant was entitled to rely on the prosecution’s version of the incident to establish standing (see People v Burton, 6 NY3d 584 [2006]), that version failed to support such a claim (see People v Ramirez-Portoreal, 88 NY2d 99, 110 [1996]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Williams, Buckley and Acosta, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 405, 853 N.Y.2d 344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-richards-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack