People v. Sessoms

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sessoms

287 A.D.2d 748, 732 N.Y.S.2d 236, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10049

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

DecidedOctober 29, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 287 A.D.2d 748 (People v. Sessoms) 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. Sessoms, 287 A.D.2d 748, 732 N.Y.S.2d 236, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10049 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered March 22, 2000, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Since the defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea of guilty, his challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Claudio, 64 NY2d 858; People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636). We reject any contention that preservation is not required, as there is nothing in the defendant’s allocution which would cast significant doubt on his guilt or otherwise call into question the voluntariness of his plea. In addition, the defendant’s factual recitation did not negate any essential element of the crimes to which he pleaded guilty (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662). Santucci, J. P., Florio, H. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered March 22, 2000, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Since the defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea of guilty, his challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Claudio, 64 NY2d 858; People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636). We reject any contention that preservation is not required, as there is nothing in the defendant’s allocution which would cast significant doubt on his guilt or otherwise call into question the voluntariness of his plea. In addition, the defendant’s factual recitation did not negate any essential element of the crimes to which he pleaded guilty (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662). Santucci, J. P., Florio, H. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 A.D.2d 748, 732 N.Y.S.2d 236, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10049, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sessoms-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack