People v. Wong (Minchui)

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedDecember 12, 2016
Docket2016 NYSlipOp 51750(U)
StatusPublished

This text of People v. Wong (Minchui) (People v. Wong (Minchui)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court 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. Wong (Minchui), (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

<partyblock>

<br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

<br><br>against<br><br>Minchui Wong, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br>

<p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Ann E. Scherzer, J.), rendered July 1, 2015, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of disorderly conduct, and imposing sentence.</p>

<p>Per Curiam.</p>

<p>Judgment of conviction (Ann E. Scherzer, J.), rendered July 1, 2015, affirmed.</p>

<p>In the particular circumstances of this case, we find that the court adequately informed defendant of the rights he would be waiving in exchange for his guilty plea and that the plea was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made (<i>see People v Conceicao</i>, 26 NY3d 375, 382 [2015]; <i>People v Sougou</i>, 26 NY3d 1052, 1054 [2015]). There is no mandatory catechism for a guilty plea, and a plea is not rendered invalid "solely because the Trial Judge failed to specifically enumerate all the rights to which the defendant was entitled and to elicit from him or her a list of detailed waivers before accepting the guilty plea" (<i>People v Tyrell</i>, 22 NY3d 359, 365 [2013], quoting <i>People v Harris</i>, 61 NY2d 9, 16 [1983]). Furthermore, as defendant pleaded guilty to an uncharged lesser offense, no factual basis for the plea was necessary (<i>see People v Moore</i>, 71 NY2d 1002, 1006 [1988]; <i>People v Clairborne</i>, 29 NY2d 950, 951 [1972]).</p>

<p>In any event, the only relief defendant requests is a dismissal of the accusatory instrument, and he expressly requests this Court to affirm his conviction if it does not grant a dismissal. Since dismissal is not warranted (<i>see People v Conceicao, </i>26 NY3d at 385 n 1 [2015]; <a href="../2016/2016_03598.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Teron</i>, 139 AD3d 450</a> [2016]), we affirm on this basis as well (<a href="../2013/2013_08025.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Diaz, </i>112 AD3d 423</a> [2013], <i>lv denied </i>23 NY3d 1036 [2014]). </p>

<p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p>

<br>I concur I concur I concur

<br>Decision Date: December 12, 2016

<br><br><div align="center">

<form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml">

<input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List">

</form>

</div>

</partyblock>

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

Related

The People v. Mactar Sougou /The People v. Rita Thompson
44 N.E.3d 196 (New York Court of Appeals, 2015)
People v. Teron
139 A.D.3d 450 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
People v. Tyrell
4 N.E.3d 346 (New York Court of Appeals, 2013)
People v. Clairborne
280 N.E.2d 366 (New York Court of Appeals, 1972)
People v. Harris
459 N.E.2d 170 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)
People v. Moore
525 N.E.2d 740 (New York Court of Appeals, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
People v. Wong (Minchui), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wong-minchui-nyappterm-2016.