People v. Stone
This text of 91 A.D.3d 977 (People v. Stone) 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.
Opinion
The defendant’s challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea allocution is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726 [1995]). Moreover, the “rare case” exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here because the defendant’s allocution did not cast significant doubt on his guilt, negate an essential element of the crime, or call into question the voluntariness of his plea (People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; see People v Young, 88 AD3d 918 [2011]). In any event, the facts admitted by the defendant during his plea allocution were sufficient to support his plea of guilty (see People v Goldstein, 12 NY3d 295, 301 [2009]; People v Seeber, 4 NY3d 780, 781 [2005]; People v Fooks, 21 NY2d 338, 350 [1967], cert denied sub nom. Robinson v New York, 393 US 1067 [1969]). Angiolillo, J.E, Florio, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
91 A.D.3d 977, 937 N.Y.2d 630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-stone-nyappdiv-2012.