People v. Van Leuven

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Van Leuven

289 A.D.2d 1050, 735 N.Y.S.2d 845, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12697

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

DecidedDecember 21, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 1050 (People v. Van Leuven) 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. Van Leuven, 289 A.D.2d 1050, 735 N.Y.S.2d 845, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12697 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted upon his plea of guilty of two counts of driving while intoxicated as a felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [2], [3]; § 1193 [1] [c]) and one count of leaving the scene of an incident without reporting (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 600 [1] [a]). Defendant’s contention that the predicate convictions of driving while intoxicated were not properly established is not preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Defendant’s further contention that the plea colloquy was factually insufficient also is not preserved for our review (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665), and this case does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation doctrine (see, People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, rearg denied 86 NY2d 839). (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Harvey, J. — Felony Driving While Intoxicated.) Present — Green, J. P., Kehoe, Burns, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted upon his plea of guilty of two counts of driving while intoxicated as a felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [2], [3]; § 1193 [1] [c]) and one count of leaving the scene of an incident without reporting (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 600 [1] [a]). Defendant’s contention that the predicate convictions of driving while intoxicated were not properly established is not preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Defendant’s further contention that the plea colloquy was factually insufficient also is not preserved for our review (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665), and this case does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation doctrine (see, People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, rearg denied 86 NY2d 839). (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Harvey, J. — Felony Driving While Intoxicated.) Present — Green, J. P., Kehoe, Burns, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 1050, 735 N.Y.S.2d 845, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-van-leuven-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack