People v. Swan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Swan

50 A.D.3d 1566, 855 N.Y.S.2d 796

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

DecidedApril 25, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 50 A.D.3d 1566 (People v. Swan) 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. Swan, 50 A.D.3d 1566, 855 N.Y.S.2d 796 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Mark H. Fandrich, J.), rendered April 10, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of escape in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of escape in the second degree (Penal Law § 205.10 [1]), defendant contends that his plea allocution was legally insufficient because he stated therein that he escaped from jail while gardening on the grounds outside the jail and thus did not escape from “a detention facility” within the meaning of the statute. Defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review inasmuch as he failed to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction on that ground (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]). This case does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation doctrine, requiring County Court to conduct a further in[1567]*1567quiry to ensure that the plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered (see id. at 666). The crime to which defendant pleaded guilty requires “ escape [ ] from a detention facility” (Penal Law § 205.10 [1]), and the garden area from which defendant fled was approximately 200 to 300 feet outside the jail and was a part of the detention facility (see generally People v Blank, 87 AD2d 947 [1982]). Present—Smith, J.P., Lunn, Fahey, Pine and Gorski, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Mark H. Fandrich, J.), rendered April 10, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of escape in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of escape in the second degree (Penal Law § 205.10 [1]), defendant contends that his plea allocution was legally insufficient because he stated therein that he escaped from jail while gardening on the grounds outside the jail and thus did not escape from “a detention facility” within the meaning of the statute. Defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review inasmuch as he failed to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction on that ground (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]). This case does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation doctrine, requiring County Court to conduct a further in[1567]*1567quiry to ensure that the plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered (see id. at 666). The crime to which defendant pleaded guilty requires “ escape [ ] from a detention facility” (Penal Law § 205.10 [1]), and the garden area from which defendant fled was approximately 200 to 300 feet outside the jail and was a part of the detention facility (see generally People v Blank, 87 AD2d 947 [1982]). Present—Smith, J.P., Lunn, Fahey, Pine and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.3d 1566, 855 N.Y.S.2d 796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-swan-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack