People v. Sapp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sapp

273 A.D.2d 848, 710 N.Y.S.2d 212, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6820

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

DecidedJune 16, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 273 A.D.2d 848 (People v. Sapp) 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. Sapp, 273 A.D.2d 848, 710 N.Y.S.2d 212, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6820 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Because defendant failed to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution has not been preserved for our review (see, People v Person, 256 AD2d 1232, lv denied 93 NY2d 856; People v Nesbett, 255 AD2d 950). The plea allocution did not engender significant doubt regarding the voluntariness of the plea to require County Court to conduct a further inquiry (see, People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726, rearg denied 86 NY2d 839; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666). By pleading guilty to criminal contempt in the first degree and admitting that he was convicted of the crime of criminal contempt in the second degree in 1994, defendant waived his contention that reversal is required because the People failed to file a special information pursuant to CPL 200.60 (see, People v Mooney, 245 AD2d 1137, lv denied 91 NY2d 928).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Cayuga County Court, Corning, J. — Contempt, 1st Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Because defendant failed to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution has not been preserved for our review (see, People v Person, 256 AD2d 1232, lv denied 93 NY2d 856; People v Nesbett, 255 AD2d 950). The plea allocution did not engender significant doubt regarding the voluntariness of the plea to require County Court to conduct a further inquiry (see, People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726, rearg denied 86 NY2d 839; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666). By pleading guilty to criminal contempt in the first degree and admitting that he was convicted of the crime of criminal contempt in the second degree in 1994, defendant waived his contention that reversal is required because the People failed to file a special information pursuant to CPL 200.60 (see, People v Mooney, 245 AD2d 1137, lv denied 91 NY2d 928).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Cayuga County Court, Corning, J. — Contempt, 1st Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 848, 710 N.Y.S.2d 212, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sapp-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack