People v. Schneider

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Schneider

259 A.D.2d 1024, 689 N.Y.S.2d 893, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3420

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 1024 (People v. Schneider) 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. Schneider, 259 A.D.2d 1024, 689 N.Y.S.2d 893, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3420 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment [1025]*1025unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that his Alford plea (see, North Carolina v Alford, 400 US 25) should be vacated because the prosecutor failed to articulate on the record the proof that the People intended to offer at trial. By failing to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review (see, People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726, rearg denied 86 NY2d 839; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665; People v Rice, 224 AD2d 972, lv denied 88 NY2d 883). Moreover, the plea colloquy does not cast significant doubt upon the voluntariness of the plea (see, People v Lopez, supra, at 666). Defendant stated that he had discussed the strengths and weaknesses of the People’s case at length with his attorney and that he wished to enter a plea to a reduced charge to avoid the possibility of conviction on the charges for which he was indicted. Further, County Court indicated that it had reviewed the Grand Jury minutes and was satisfied that there was a substantial likelihood that defendant would be convicted. (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Sirkin, J. — Criminal Mischief, 4th Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Lawton, Hayes, Pigott, Jr., and Hurlbutt, JJ.

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

Judgment [1025]*1025unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that his Alford plea (see, North Carolina v Alford, 400 US 25) should be vacated because the prosecutor failed to articulate on the record the proof that the People intended to offer at trial. By failing to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review (see, People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726, rearg denied 86 NY2d 839; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665; People v Rice, 224 AD2d 972, lv denied 88 NY2d 883). Moreover, the plea colloquy does not cast significant doubt upon the voluntariness of the plea (see, People v Lopez, supra, at 666). Defendant stated that he had discussed the strengths and weaknesses of the People’s case at length with his attorney and that he wished to enter a plea to a reduced charge to avoid the possibility of conviction on the charges for which he was indicted. Further, County Court indicated that it had reviewed the Grand Jury minutes and was satisfied that there was a substantial likelihood that defendant would be convicted. (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Sirkin, J. — Criminal Mischief, 4th Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Lawton, Hayes, Pigott, Jr., and Hurlbutt, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 1024, 689 N.Y.S.2d 893, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-schneider-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack