People v. Rufa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rufa

57 A.D.3d 697, 868 N.Y.2d 535

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

DecidedDecember 9, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 57 A.D.3d 697 (People v. Rufa) 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. Rufa, 57 A.D.3d 697, 868 N.Y.2d 535 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his challenge to the factual adequacy of his plea allocution (see People v Nash, 38 AD3d 684 [2007]; People v Mydosh, 27 AD3d 580 [2006]; People v Curras, 1 AD3d 445, 446 [2003]). To the extent that the defendant contends that his plea was not knowing or voluntary, his claim is unpreserved for appellate review since he did not move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment on that ground (see People v Elcine, 43 AD3d 1176, 1177 [2007]; People v Nash, 38 AD3d 684 [2007]; People v Burgess, 21 AD3d 904 [2005]). The narrow exception to the preservation rule (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]) is inapplicable here (see People v Smith, 43 AD3d 474 [2007]; People v Sandson, 6 AD3d 632 [2004]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Skelos, J.E, Ritter, Dillon, Garni and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

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

The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his challenge to the factual adequacy of his plea allocution (see People v Nash, 38 AD3d 684 [2007]; People v Mydosh, 27 AD3d 580 [2006]; People v Curras, 1 AD3d 445, 446 [2003]). To the extent that the defendant contends that his plea was not knowing or voluntary, his claim is unpreserved for appellate review since he did not move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment on that ground (see People v Elcine, 43 AD3d 1176, 1177 [2007]; People v Nash, 38 AD3d 684 [2007]; People v Burgess, 21 AD3d 904 [2005]). The narrow exception to the preservation rule (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]) is inapplicable here (see People v Smith, 43 AD3d 474 [2007]; People v Sandson, 6 AD3d 632 [2004]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Skelos, J.E, Ritter, Dillon, Garni and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 697, 868 N.Y.2d 535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rufa-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack