People v. Stepney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Stepney

273 A.D.2d 841, 710 N.Y.S.2d 220, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6780

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

DecidedJune 16, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 273 A.D.2d 841 (People v. Stepney) 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. Stepney, 273 A.D.2d 841, 710 N.Y.S.2d 220, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6780 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to defendant’s contention that County Court failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry before accepting defendant’s guilty plea. The record establishes that, when defendant made statements during the plea colloquy casting significant doubt upon his guilt, the court interrupted the proceedings to afford defendant an opportunity to consult with counsel, and then properly conducted further inquiry to ensure that defendant’s plea was knowing and voluntary and that there was a factual basis for the plea (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666-668). “Having failed to express, in any way, dissatisfaction with the court’s remedial action, defendant has waived any further challenge to the allocution, and thus no issue is preserved for our review” (People v Lopez, supra, at 668). In any event, we conclude that defendant’s plea allocution is sufficient to support the conviction (see generally, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 16-17). (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, McGuire, J. — Burglary, 1st Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Hurlbutt and Lawton, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to defendant’s contention that County Court failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry before accepting defendant’s guilty plea. The record establishes that, when defendant made statements during the plea colloquy casting significant doubt upon his guilt, the court interrupted the proceedings to afford defendant an opportunity to consult with counsel, and then properly conducted further inquiry to ensure that defendant’s plea was knowing and voluntary and that there was a factual basis for the plea (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666-668). “Having failed to express, in any way, dissatisfaction with the court’s remedial action, defendant has waived any further challenge to the allocution, and thus no issue is preserved for our review” (People v Lopez, supra, at 668). In any event, we conclude that defendant’s plea allocution is sufficient to support the conviction (see generally, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 16-17). (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, McGuire, J. — Burglary, 1st Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Hurlbutt and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 841, 710 N.Y.S.2d 220, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6780, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-stepney-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack