People v. Suarez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Suarez

132 A.D.3d 550, 17 N.Y.S.3d 862

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

DecidedOctober 22, 2015

Docket15922 1504/11

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 132 A.D.3d 550 (People v. Suarez) 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. Suarez, 132 A.D.3d 550, 17 N.Y.S.3d 862 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael R. Sonberg, J.), rendered October 9, 2012, as amended October 15, 2012, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first and third degrees, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of eight years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s argument that his guilty plea was invalid because the court misstated one of his rights under Boykin v Alabama (395 US 238 [1969]) is unpreserved (see e.g. People v Jackson, 114 AD3d 807 [2d Dept 2014], lv denied 22 NY3d 1199 [2014]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Unlike the situation in People v Tyrell (22 NY3d 359, 364 [2013]), defendant had the opportunity to raise the issue, and the deficiency was far short of a mode of proceedings error. As an alternative holding, we find that the record establishes the voluntariness of the plea (see Tyrell, 22 NY3d at 365; see also People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 16-19 [1983]). The plea court’s slip of the tongue in rendering the right to confront witnesses as the essentially similar “right to be confronted by” witnesses could not have undermined the validity of the plea.

Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz 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 (Michael R. Sonberg, J.), rendered October 9, 2012, as amended October 15, 2012, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first and third degrees, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of eight years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s argument that his guilty plea was invalid because the court misstated one of his rights under Boykin v Alabama (395 US 238 [1969]) is unpreserved (see e.g. People v Jackson, 114 AD3d 807 [2d Dept 2014], lv denied 22 NY3d 1199 [2014]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Unlike the situation in People v Tyrell (22 NY3d 359, 364 [2013]), defendant had the opportunity to raise the issue, and the deficiency was far short of a mode of proceedings error. As an alternative holding, we find that the record establishes the voluntariness of the plea (see Tyrell, 22 NY3d at 365; see also People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 16-19 [1983]). The plea court’s slip of the tongue in rendering the right to confront witnesses as the essentially similar “right to be confronted by” witnesses could not have undermined the validity of the plea.

Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 A.D.3d 550, 17 N.Y.S.3d 862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-suarez-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack