People v. Socci

2018 NY Slip Op 2664
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 18, 2018
Docket2008-06941
StatusPublished

This text of 2018 NY Slip Op 2664 (People v. Socci) 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. Socci, 2018 NY Slip Op 2664 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

People v Socci (2018 NY Slip Op 02664)
People v Socci
2018 NY Slip Op 02664
Decided on April 18, 2018
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on April 18, 2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX
LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

2008-06941
2008-06942

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Stephen Socci, appellant. (Ind. Nos. 2657/06, 1715/07)


Law Offices of Thomas F. Liotti, LLC, Garden City, NY, for appellant.

Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Judith R. Sternberg and Hilda Mortensen of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (James P. McCormack, J.), both rendered March 26, 2008, convicting him of assault in the second degree (two counts) under Indictment No. 2657/06, and kidnapping in the second degree and aggravated criminal contempt under Indictment No. 1715/07, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant's contention that he was not competent to plead guilty is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Washington, 134 AD3d 963, 963; People v Perez, 65 AD3d 1167). In any event, the contention is without merit. The defendant was presumed competent to proceed (see People v Gelikkaya, 84 NY2d 456). His demeanor in court and responses to inquiries were appropriate and did not trigger any duty to inquire as to his competency (see People v Anlyan, 150 AD3d 869; People v Washington, 134 AD3d at 964; People v DeBenedetto, 120 AD3d 1428).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit or not properly before this Court (see People v Williams, 149 AD3d 986).

DILLON, J.P., CHAMBERS, HINDS-RADIX and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court



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

Related

People v. Gelikkaya
643 N.E.2d 517 (New York Court of Appeals, 1994)
People v. DeBenedetto
120 A.D.3d 1428 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
People v. Washington
134 A.D.3d 963 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
People v. Williams
2017 NY Slip Op 3024 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Anlyan
2017 NY Slip Op 3763 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Perez
65 A.D.3d 1167 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2018 NY Slip Op 2664, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-socci-nyappdiv-2018.