People v. Vincent

305 A.D.2d 1108, 757 N.Y.S.2d 920, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4762
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 2, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 305 A.D.2d 1108 (People v. Vincent) 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. Vincent, 305 A.D.2d 1108, 757 N.Y.S.2d 920, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4762 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of Chautauqua County Court (Ward, J.), entered September 17, 2001, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of attempted burglary in the second 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 convict[1109]*1109ing him, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]) in satisfaction of an indictment charging him with, inter alia, burglary in the second degree. We reject the contention of defendant that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. Defendant stated several times that he understood that he was pleading guilty to a lesser included offense in order to avoid a more severe sentence (see generally People v Dashnaw, 260 AD2d 658, 659 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 968 [1999]). Because defendant pleaded guilty to a lesser included offense, no factual colloquy was required (see People v Harris, 233 AD2d 959 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 1094 [1997]), and thus we reject defendant’s further contention that the plea allocution was legally insufficient. Finally, by pleading guilty defendant forfeited his right to contend on appeal that he was denied his right to testify before the grand jury and that defense counsel’s failure to advise the prosecutor of defendant’s desire to testify before the grand jury constituted ineffective assistance of counsel (see generally People v Hansen, 95 NY2d 227, 230-231 [2000]; People v Burke, 256 AD2d 1244 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 851 [1999]). Present — Green, J.P., Wisner, Scudder, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Lafferty
2024 NY Slip Op 02470 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
ORTIZ, KENNETH R., PEOPLE v
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013
People v. Ortiz
104 A.D.3d 1202 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
People v. McCawley
23 A.D.3d 1157 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
People v. Thelbert
17 A.D.3d 1049 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
People v. Lighthall
6 A.D.3d 1170 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
305 A.D.2d 1108, 757 N.Y.S.2d 920, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4762, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-vincent-nyappdiv-2003.