People v. Trapp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Trapp

15 A.D.3d 916, 788 N.Y.S.2d 774, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1232

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 15 A.D.3d 916 (People v. Trapp) 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. Trapp, 15 A.D.3d 916, 788 N.Y.S.2d 774, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1232 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Peter E. Corning, J.), rendered October 26, 2001. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [3]). Defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction and thus failed to preserve for our review his contention that the plea allocution was factually insufficient because County Court failed to obtain a waiver of the defense of mental disease or defect. Nothing in the plea allocution raised the possibility of that defense (cf. People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666-668 [1988]; People v Costanza, 244 AD2d 988, 989 [1997]) and, indeed, defendant specifically denied that he had any mental disability that would affect his ability to enter a voluntary plea of guilty. We therefore conclude that defendant’s contention does not fall within the rare case exception to the preservation rule (see Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present — Green, J.P, Scudder, Martoche, Smith and Lawton, 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 (Peter E. Corning, J.), rendered October 26, 2001. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [3]). Defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction and thus failed to preserve for our review his contention that the plea allocution was factually insufficient because County Court failed to obtain a waiver of the defense of mental disease or defect. Nothing in the plea allocution raised the possibility of that defense (cf. People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666-668 [1988]; People v Costanza, 244 AD2d 988, 989 [1997]) and, indeed, defendant specifically denied that he had any mental disability that would affect his ability to enter a voluntary plea of guilty. We therefore conclude that defendant’s contention does not fall within the rare case exception to the preservation rule (see Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present — Green, J.P, Scudder, Martoche, Smith and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.3d 916, 788 N.Y.S.2d 774, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-trapp-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack