People v. Terry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Terry

115 A.D.3d 683, 981 N.Y.S.2d 567

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

DecidedMarch 5, 2014

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 115 A.D.3d 683 (People v. Terry) 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. Terry, 115 A.D.3d 683, 981 N.Y.S.2d 567 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (O’Brien, J.), rendered June 13, 2012, convicting him of possessing a sexual performance by a child, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The record was insufficient to insure that the defendant grasped the distinction between the trial rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty and the right to appeal, especially since there is no written waiver of the right to appeal in the record (see People v Moyett, 7 NY3d 892 [2006]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Ayala, 112 AD3d 646 [2013]; cf. People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]). Accordingly, the de[684]*684fendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid, and does not preclude review of his challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea allocution.

However, the defendant’s challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea allocution is unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]; People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636, 637 [1983]; People v Colston, 68 AD3d 1130 [2009]). Moreover, the exception to the preservation requirement, as enunciated in People v Lopez (71 NY2d at 666), does not apply here because the defendant’s allocution did not clearly cast significant doubt on his guilt, negate an essential element of the crime, or call into question the voluntariness of the plea (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]).

Balkin, J.R, Lott, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (O’Brien, J.), rendered June 13, 2012, convicting him of possessing a sexual performance by a child, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The record was insufficient to insure that the defendant grasped the distinction between the trial rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty and the right to appeal, especially since there is no written waiver of the right to appeal in the record (see People v Moyett, 7 NY3d 892 [2006]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Ayala, 112 AD3d 646 [2013]; cf. People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]). Accordingly, the de[684]*684fendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid, and does not preclude review of his challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea allocution.

However, the defendant’s challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea allocution is unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]; People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636, 637 [1983]; People v Colston, 68 AD3d 1130 [2009]). Moreover, the exception to the preservation requirement, as enunciated in People v Lopez (71 NY2d at 666), does not apply here because the defendant’s allocution did not clearly cast significant doubt on his guilt, negate an essential element of the crime, or call into question the voluntariness of the plea (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]).

Balkin, J.R, Lott, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.3d 683, 981 N.Y.S.2d 567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-terry-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack