WOODS, RONALD, PEOPLE v

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 2, 2015
DocketKA 12-01947
StatusPublished

This text of WOODS, RONALD, PEOPLE v (WOODS, RONALD, PEOPLE v) 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
WOODS, RONALD, PEOPLE v, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1250 KA 12-01947 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RONALD WOODS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL J. STACHOWSKI, P.C., BUFFALO (MICHAEL J. STACHOWSKI OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DAVID A. HERATY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Deborah A. Haendiges, J.), rendered September 6, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted assault in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law, the plea is vacated and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Erie County, for further proceedings on the indictment.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted assault in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.05 [2]). We agree with defendant that the plea is invalid based upon the factual insufficiency of the plea allocution. We note at the outset that defendant did not preserve for our review his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution by moving to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665). We conclude, however, that this case falls within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement inasmuch as defendant’s response to Supreme Court’s question concerning his guilt “clearly cast[] significant doubt upon his guilt or otherwise call[ed] into question the voluntariness of the plea,” and the court failed to conduct the requisite further inquiry to ensure that the plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered (id. at 666; see People v Morehouse, 109 AD3d 1022, 1022-1023; People v Roy, 77 AD3d 1310, 1310-1311). Defendant, moreover, never affirmatively pleaded guilty to attempted assault (see People v Nieves, 72 AD2d 609, 610), nor did he admit to any conduct underlying the crime (see People v Bellis, 78 AD2d 1014, 1014). We therefore reverse the conviction, vacate the plea and remit the matter -2- 1250 KA 12-01947

to Supreme Court for further proceedings on the indictment.

Entered: January 2, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

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

Related

People v. Lopez
525 N.E.2d 5 (New York Court of Appeals, 1988)
People v. Roy
77 A.D.3d 1310 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Nieves
72 A.D.2d 609 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
People v. Bellis
78 A.D.2d 1014 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
People v. Morehouse
109 A.D.3d 1022 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
WOODS, RONALD, PEOPLE v, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woods-ronald-people-v-nyappdiv-2015.