People v. Sanat

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sanat

108 A.D.3d 872, 968 N.Y.S.2d 407

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

DecidedJuly 11, 2013

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 108 A.D.3d 872 (People v. Sanat) 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. Sanat, 108 A.D.3d 872, 968 N.Y.S.2d 407 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

— McCarthy, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.), rendered May 18, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the third degree.

In satisfaction of a multicount indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to burglary in the third degree and, thereafter, was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. This appeal ensued.

As the record does not indicate that defendant moved to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction, his challenge to the voluntariness and factual sufficiency of his plea are not preserved for our review (see People v Morgan, 84 AD3d 1594, 1594 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 819 [2011]; People v Smith, 57 AD3d 1237, 1237 [2008]). Furthermore, nothing in the record casts significant doubt on defendant’s guilt or negates an essential element of the crime so as to warrant the application of the narrow exception to the preservation rule (see People v Thompson, 70 AD3d 1123, 1123 [2010]), and defendant “was not required to recite the elements of his crime or engage in a factual exposition, as his unequivocal affirmative responses to County Court’s questions were sufficient to establish the elements of the crime charged” (People v Board, 75 AD3d 833, 834 [2010]).

Peters, P.J., Lahtinen and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

— McCarthy, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.), rendered May 18, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the third degree.

In satisfaction of a multicount indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to burglary in the third degree and, thereafter, was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. This appeal ensued.

As the record does not indicate that defendant moved to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction, his challenge to the voluntariness and factual sufficiency of his plea are not preserved for our review (see People v Morgan, 84 AD3d 1594, 1594 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 819 [2011]; People v Smith, 57 AD3d 1237, 1237 [2008]). Furthermore, nothing in the record casts significant doubt on defendant’s guilt or negates an essential element of the crime so as to warrant the application of the narrow exception to the preservation rule (see People v Thompson, 70 AD3d 1123, 1123 [2010]), and defendant “was not required to recite the elements of his crime or engage in a factual exposition, as his unequivocal affirmative responses to County Court’s questions were sufficient to establish the elements of the crime charged” (People v Board, 75 AD3d 833, 834 [2010]).

Peters, P.J., Lahtinen and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 A.D.3d 872, 968 N.Y.S.2d 407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sanat-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack