People v. Thoreck

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Thoreck

303 A.D.2d 982, 755 N.Y.S.2d 918, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2996

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

DecidedMarch 21, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 303 A.D.2d 982 (People v. Thoreck) 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. Thoreck, 303 A.D.2d 982, 755 N.Y.S.2d 918, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2996 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of Onondaga County Court (Fahey, J.), entered October 2, 2000, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the first degree.

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

[983]*983Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the first degree (Penal Law § 140.30 [1]). Defendant failed to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction and thus has failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, his recitation of the facts underlying the crime to which he pleaded guilty does not “clearly cast[ ] significant doubt upon [his] guilt or otherwise call[ ] into question the voluntariness of the plea” (id. at 666), and thus his “plea allocution does not qualify for the narrow, ‘rare case’ exception to the preservation doctrine described in [Lopez]” (People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726 [1995], rearg denied 86 NY2d 839 [1995]). Present — Green, J.P., Wisner, Scudder, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

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

—Appeal from a judgment of Onondaga County Court (Fahey, J.), entered October 2, 2000, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the first degree.

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

[983]*983Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the first degree (Penal Law § 140.30 [1]). Defendant failed to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction and thus has failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, his recitation of the facts underlying the crime to which he pleaded guilty does not “clearly cast[ ] significant doubt upon [his] guilt or otherwise call[ ] into question the voluntariness of the plea” (id. at 666), and thus his “plea allocution does not qualify for the narrow, ‘rare case’ exception to the preservation doctrine described in [Lopez]” (People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726 [1995], rearg denied 86 NY2d 839 [1995]). Present — Green, J.P., Wisner, Scudder, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 982, 755 N.Y.S.2d 918, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2996, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-thoreck-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack