People v. Simmons

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Simmons

72 A.D.3d 536, 898 N.Y.S.2d 454

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

DecidedApril 20, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 72 A.D.3d 536 (People v. Simmons) 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. Simmons, 72 A.D.3d 536, 898 N.Y.S.2d 454 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berk-man, J.), rendered January 14, 2009, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

Since defendant did not move to withdraw his guilty plea, and since this case does not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662 [1988]), his challenge to the plea is unpreserved and we decline [537]*537to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. The record establishes that defendant’s plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary, and there was nothing in the plea allocution that cast significant doubt on his guilt (see People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725 [1995]). When, during the plea colloquy, defendant made statements that could be viewed as exculpatory, the court made careful inquiries that established he was admitting his intentional participation in a robbery (see People v McNair, 13 NY3d 821 [2009]). Concur— Andrias, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berk-man, J.), rendered January 14, 2009, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

Since defendant did not move to withdraw his guilty plea, and since this case does not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662 [1988]), his challenge to the plea is unpreserved and we decline [537]*537to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. The record establishes that defendant’s plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary, and there was nothing in the plea allocution that cast significant doubt on his guilt (see People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725 [1995]). When, during the plea colloquy, defendant made statements that could be viewed as exculpatory, the court made careful inquiries that established he was admitting his intentional participation in a robbery (see People v McNair, 13 NY3d 821 [2009]). Concur— Andrias, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.3d 536, 898 N.Y.S.2d 454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-simmons-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack