People v. Ulmer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ulmer

110 A.D.2d 729, 487 N.Y.S.2d 612, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48633

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

DecidedApril 8, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 110 A.D.2d 729 (People v. Ulmer) 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. Ulmer, 110 A.D.2d 729, 487 N.Y.S.2d 612, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48633 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

We note that the issue raised by defendant concerning his plea of guilty was not presented to the court of first instance by way of a motion to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment. Accordingly, the issue has not been preserved for review (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636; People v Harris, 100 AD2d 853; People v Willie, 101 AD2d 819). In any event, were we to address the merits, we would affirm.

Defendant contends that County Court erred by accepting his plea without a sufficient factual basis to establish that he acted with the intent to cause either serious physical injury or the death of the victim. The claim is belied by the record wherein defendant admitted choking the victim for 15 to 20 minutes. In any event, it is well established that no uniform mandatory catechism of pleading defendants is required (People v Nixon, 21 NY2d 338, cert denied sub nom. Robinson v New York, 393 US 1067). The record before us demonstrates that the fundamentals of plea taking were observed, that defendant acknowledged facts [730]*730sufficient to establish the crime of manslaughter in the first degree, and that the defendant’s pleas were knowingly and voluntarily entered (People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9). Gibbons, J. P., Weinstein, Brown and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

We note that the issue raised by defendant concerning his plea of guilty was not presented to the court of first instance by way of a motion to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment. Accordingly, the issue has not been preserved for review (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636; People v Harris, 100 AD2d 853; People v Willie, 101 AD2d 819). In any event, were we to address the merits, we would affirm.

Defendant contends that County Court erred by accepting his plea without a sufficient factual basis to establish that he acted with the intent to cause either serious physical injury or the death of the victim. The claim is belied by the record wherein defendant admitted choking the victim for 15 to 20 minutes. In any event, it is well established that no uniform mandatory catechism of pleading defendants is required (People v Nixon, 21 NY2d 338, cert denied sub nom. Robinson v New York, 393 US 1067). The record before us demonstrates that the fundamentals of plea taking were observed, that defendant acknowledged facts [730]*730sufficient to establish the crime of manslaughter in the first degree, and that the defendant’s pleas were knowingly and voluntarily entered (People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9). Gibbons, J. P., Weinstein, Brown and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A.D.2d 729, 487 N.Y.S.2d 612, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48633, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ulmer-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack