People v. Townsend

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Townsend

257 A.D.2d 458, 683 N.Y.S.2d 253, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 175

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

DecidedJanuary 14, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 257 A.D.2d 458 (People v. Townsend) 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. Townsend, 257 A.D.2d 458, 683 N.Y.S.2d 253, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 175 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena Uviller, J.), rendered May 30, 1995, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 5V2 to 11 years, unanimously affirmed.

Since defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea was made on different grounds, his claim that his plea was rendered involuntary by the court’s failure to inquire about the affirmative defense to robbery in the first degree is unpreserved for appellate review (People v Rafael, 243 AD2d 277, lv denied 91 NY2d 836), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that defendant’s plea was knowing and voluntary. There was nothing in defendant’s allocution itself (see, People v Negron, 222 AD2d 327, lv denied 88 NY2d 882) that would raise the possibility of an affirmative defense or otherwise cast doubt on his guilt (People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725).

Defendant’s statement concerning his ownership of pictures found in the complainant’s wallet was spontaneous and voluntary in that the questions and remarks were directed to the complainant and were not calculated to elicit an incriminating response from defendant (People v Quinto, 245 AD2d 121). Accordingly, the suppression motion was properly denied. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena Uviller, J.), rendered May 30, 1995, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 5V2 to 11 years, unanimously affirmed.

Since defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea was made on different grounds, his claim that his plea was rendered involuntary by the court’s failure to inquire about the affirmative defense to robbery in the first degree is unpreserved for appellate review (People v Rafael, 243 AD2d 277, lv denied 91 NY2d 836), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that defendant’s plea was knowing and voluntary. There was nothing in defendant’s allocution itself (see, People v Negron, 222 AD2d 327, lv denied 88 NY2d 882) that would raise the possibility of an affirmative defense or otherwise cast doubt on his guilt (People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725).

Defendant’s statement concerning his ownership of pictures found in the complainant’s wallet was spontaneous and voluntary in that the questions and remarks were directed to the complainant and were not calculated to elicit an incriminating response from defendant (People v Quinto, 245 AD2d 121). Accordingly, the suppression motion was properly denied. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D.2d 458, 683 N.Y.S.2d 253, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-townsend-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack