People v. Zakrzewski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Zakrzewski

69 A.D.3d 1055, 891 N.Y.2d 670

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

DecidedJanuary 14, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 69 A.D.3d 1055 (People v. Zakrzewski) 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. Zakrzewski, 69 A.D.3d 1055, 891 N.Y.2d 670 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Malone Jr., J.

In satisfaction of an eight-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to grand larceny in the third degree and identity theft in the first degree and, in accordance with the plea agreement, was sentenced as a second felony offender to concurrent prison terms of SVs to 7 years. Defendant appeals.

Defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of his plea and the factual sufficiency of the allocution is not preserved for review inasmuch as he failed to move either to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Seitz, 67 AD3d 1251, 1251 [2009]; People v Davis-Ivery, 59 AD3d 853, 854 [2009]). The narrow exception to the preservation requirement is not applicable here because defendant did not make any statement during the allocution that tended to negate an essential element of the crimes or otherwise cast doubt on his guilt (see People v Seitz, 67 AD3d at 1251; People v Brennan, 62 AD3d 1167, 1168 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 794 [2009]). In any event, a review of the transcript reveals that defendant intelligently, knowingly and voluntarily entered a guilty plea. Furthermore, the entry of such a guilty plea forfeited any claim that defendant was denied the statutory right to a speedy trial under CPL 30.30 (see People v O’Brien, 56 NY2d 1009, 1010 [1982]).

Spain, J.P., Rose, Kavanagh and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Malone Jr., J.

In satisfaction of an eight-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to grand larceny in the third degree and identity theft in the first degree and, in accordance with the plea agreement, was sentenced as a second felony offender to concurrent prison terms of SVs to 7 years. Defendant appeals.

Defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of his plea and the factual sufficiency of the allocution is not preserved for review inasmuch as he failed to move either to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Seitz, 67 AD3d 1251, 1251 [2009]; People v Davis-Ivery, 59 AD3d 853, 854 [2009]). The narrow exception to the preservation requirement is not applicable here because defendant did not make any statement during the allocution that tended to negate an essential element of the crimes or otherwise cast doubt on his guilt (see People v Seitz, 67 AD3d at 1251; People v Brennan, 62 AD3d 1167, 1168 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 794 [2009]). In any event, a review of the transcript reveals that defendant intelligently, knowingly and voluntarily entered a guilty plea. Furthermore, the entry of such a guilty plea forfeited any claim that defendant was denied the statutory right to a speedy trial under CPL 30.30 (see People v O’Brien, 56 NY2d 1009, 1010 [1982]).

Spain, J.P., Rose, Kavanagh and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.3d 1055, 891 N.Y.2d 670, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-zakrzewski-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack