People v. Siders

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Siders

123 A.D.3d 408, 996 N.Y.S.2d 279

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

DecidedDecember 2, 2014

Docket13626 2860/11

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 123 A.D.3d 408 (People v. Siders) 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. Siders, 123 A.D.3d 408, 996 N.Y.S.2d 279 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J.), rendered January 3, 2012, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal mischief in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of nine months, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant did not preserve his claim that the court should have inquired into whether his guilty plea was coerced by the court’s denial of a bail reduction, and we find that his challenge to the plea does not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Peque, 22 NY3d 168, 182 [2013]; see also People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725 [1995]). We decline to review the challenge in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary, and the mere fact that defendant initially rejected the People’s plea offer but changed his mind immediately after the court denied the bail application did not require any additional inquiry. Defendant does not contend that the denial of his bail application was improper or unwarranted by the circumstances (com pare People v Sung Min, 249 AD2d 130, 132 [1st Dept 1998]). Furthermore, defendant was already incarcerated in lieu of bail, and there is no indication that simply maintaining the same bail conditions was being used to unduly persuade defendant to plead guilty (compare People v Grant, 61 AD3d 177, 184 [2d Dept 2009]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Saxe, Clark and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J.), rendered January 3, 2012, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal mischief in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of nine months, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant did not preserve his claim that the court should have inquired into whether his guilty plea was coerced by the court’s denial of a bail reduction, and we find that his challenge to the plea does not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Peque, 22 NY3d 168, 182 [2013]; see also People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725 [1995]). We decline to review the challenge in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary, and the mere fact that defendant initially rejected the People’s plea offer but changed his mind immediately after the court denied the bail application did not require any additional inquiry. Defendant does not contend that the denial of his bail application was improper or unwarranted by the circumstances (com pare People v Sung Min, 249 AD2d 130, 132 [1st Dept 1998]). Furthermore, defendant was already incarcerated in lieu of bail, and there is no indication that simply maintaining the same bail conditions was being used to unduly persuade defendant to plead guilty (compare People v Grant, 61 AD3d 177, 184 [2d Dept 2009]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Saxe, Clark and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.3d 408, 996 N.Y.S.2d 279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-siders-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack