People v. Vanier

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Vanier

110 A.D.2d 980, 488 N.Y.S.2d 113, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48872

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

DecidedApril 25, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 110 A.D.2d 980 (People v. Vanier) 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. Vanier, 110 A.D.2d 980, 488 N.Y.S.2d 113, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48872 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

— Yesawich, Jr., J.

Defendant now asserts that acceptance of his guilty plea was constitutionally impermissible as the plea allocution did not establish an essential element of the crime, namely, intent to commit murder. This issue has not, however, been preserved for appellate review for defendant failed to move to withdraw the plea before sentencing or to raise the issue by a motion to vacate the judgment of conviction (People v Claudio, 64 NY2d 858). Beyond that, it is established law that “where the defendant’s story does not square with the crime to which he is pleading”, County Court may nevertheless accept the plea provided it takes “all precautions to assure that the defendant is aware of what he is doing” (People v Serrano, 15 NY2d 304, 310). Here, County Court not only pointed out to defendant during the plea proceed[981]*981ing that his recital of the crime suggested a defense of extreme emotional disturbance, but also thoroughly apprised defendant of the alternatives to the negotiated sentence. These cautionary efforts were sufficient to ensure that defendant’s plea was knowingly and voluntarily given (see, People v Konyack, 99 AD2d 588, 589; see also, North Carolina v Alford, 400 US 25). Defendant’s other contention, that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel, is similarly without merit.

Judgment affirmed. Main, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.

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

— Yesawich, Jr., J.

Defendant now asserts that acceptance of his guilty plea was constitutionally impermissible as the plea allocution did not establish an essential element of the crime, namely, intent to commit murder. This issue has not, however, been preserved for appellate review for defendant failed to move to withdraw the plea before sentencing or to raise the issue by a motion to vacate the judgment of conviction (People v Claudio, 64 NY2d 858). Beyond that, it is established law that “where the defendant’s story does not square with the crime to which he is pleading”, County Court may nevertheless accept the plea provided it takes “all precautions to assure that the defendant is aware of what he is doing” (People v Serrano, 15 NY2d 304, 310). Here, County Court not only pointed out to defendant during the plea proceed[981]*981ing that his recital of the crime suggested a defense of extreme emotional disturbance, but also thoroughly apprised defendant of the alternatives to the negotiated sentence. These cautionary efforts were sufficient to ensure that defendant’s plea was knowingly and voluntarily given (see, People v Konyack, 99 AD2d 588, 589; see also, North Carolina v Alford, 400 US 25). Defendant’s other contention, that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel, is similarly without merit.

Judgment affirmed. Main, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A.D.2d 980, 488 N.Y.S.2d 113, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-vanier-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack