People v. Lloyd, 489 N.E.2d 754 (NY 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Lloyd, 489 N.E.2d 754 (NY 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2015–2022 · …an appellate court is rarely in a position to determine whether denial of a suppression motion played any part in a defendant's decision to plead at p. 965 ✓
38 citation events (23 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Robles (2×)
NY · 2024 · confidence medium
With the framework for assessing harmlessness in mind, we conclude that this is not one of the rare situations where the record "leave[s] no question regarding [the defendant's] independent motivation to plead guilty" ( People v Lloyd , 66 NY2d 964, 965 [1985] [defendant pleaded guilty before the suppression hearing, was permitted to withdraw his plea when the court determined that, because of his criminal record, it could not keep its sentencing promise, and later pleaded guilty following the denial of suppression, with the understanding that he would not be sentenced as a persistent or viole…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Lipka
N.Y. App. Div. · 2024 · confidence medium
"It is unusual for a conviction rendered after a guilty plea to be amenable to harmless error analysis for the simple reason that 'an appellate court is rarely in a position to determine whether denial of a suppression motion played any part in a defendant's decision to plead' " ( People v Henry , 133 AD3d 1085 , 1087 [3d Dept 2015], quoting People v Lloyd , 66 NY2d 964, 965 [1985]; see People v Teixeira-Ingram , 199 AD3d 1240, 1242 [3d Dept 2021]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Robles
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · confidence medium
Because defendants usually do not say why they are pleading guilty, "an appellate court is rarely in a position to determine whether denial of a suppression motion played any part in a defendant's decision to plead" ( People v Lloyd , 66 NY2d 964, 965 [1985]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Holz
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
Thus, under certain circumstances, the limited nature of a particular suppression ruling may establish that there was no reasonable possibility that any error with respect thereto contributed to the defendant's decision to plead guilty ( see People v Lloyd , 66 NY2d 964, 965 [1985]; People v Clanton , 151 AD3d 1576, 1579 [4th Dept 2017]; People v McLaughlin , 269 AD2d 858, 858-859 [4th Dept 2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 800 [2000]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Clanton
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
This is especially true when the defendant has unsuccessfully sought to suppress a confession” (People v Grant, 45 NY2d 366, 379-380 [1978]; see People v Wells, 21 NY3d 716, 717-718 [2013]; cf. People v Lloyd, 66 NY2d 964, 965 [1985]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Henry
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
It is unusual for a conviction rendered after a guilty plea to be amenable to harmless error analysis for the simple reason that “an appellate court is rarely in a position to determine whether denial of a suppression motion played any part in a defendant’s decision to plead” (People v Lloyd, 66 NY2d 964, 965 [1985]; see People v Wells, 21 NY3d 716, 718-719 [2013]; People v Grant, 45 NY2d 366, 377-379 [1978]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Henry
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
It is unusual for a conviction rendered after a guilty plea to be amenable to harmless error analysis for the simple reason that “an appellate court is rarely in a position to determine whether denial of a suppression motion played any part in a defendant’s decision to plead” (People v Lloyd, 66 NY2d 964, 965 [1985]; see People v Wells, 21 NY3d 716, 718-719 [2013]; People v Grant, 45 NY2d 366, 377-379 [1978]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Carlton
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
At the outset, we reject the People’s contention that any error by the court in summarily denying those parts of defendant’s motion is harmless (see People v Lloyd, 66 NY2d 964, 965 [1985]; People v Coles, 62 NY2d 908, 910 [1984]; People v Grant, 45 NY2d 366, 378-380 [1978]).
cited Cited "see" People v. Hardman
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
Under the circumstances, there is no “reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the plea” (People v Grant, 45 NY2d 366, 379 [1978]; see People v Lloyd, 66 NY2d 964 [1985]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Strain
N.Y. App. Div. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
Assuming, arguendo, the validity of the defendant’s argument, we hold that under the circumstances presented, this is one of those "rare occasions” where the erroneous suppression ruling may be-considered harmless beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to the ultimate plea (People v Mayorga, 100 AD2d 853, 856-857 [dissenting opn by Rubin, J., in which Thompson, J., concurred]; see generally, People v Lloyd, 66 NY2d 964 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Brathwaite
N.Y. App. Div. · 1990 · signal: compare · confidence low
Although the defendant was exhibited wearing the clothing described by eyewitnesses, at least two other lineup participants were similarly attired so that he did not stand out from the rest (see, People v Diaz, 138 AD2d 728 ; compare, People v Lloyd, 108 AD2d 873 , affd 66 NY2d 964 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Jessie Lloyd, Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
Dec 17, 1985.
489 N.E.2d 754
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Roger D. Olson and William E. Hellerstein for appellant., Elizabeth Holtzman, District Attorney (Shulamit Rosenblum, Barbara D. Underwood and Peter A. Weinstein of counsel), for respondent.
Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Titone Concur.
Cited by 31 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Defendant contends that an erroneous denial of suppression[*965] of a confession and showup entitles him to the return of his guilty pleas, upon which he was convicted of first degree robbery and third degree burglary. Even if we were to agree that suppression was improperly denied — a question we do not reach — still any such error would on the facts presented not entitle defendant to the relief he requests. Here, unlike People v Coles (62 NY2d 908), People v Rolston (50 NY2d 1048), People v Burrows (46 NY2d 957) and People v Grant (45 NY2d 366), defendant prior to the suppression hearing entered pleas of guilty to robbery in the first degree and burglary in the third degree in return for a conditional sentence promise. The court thereafter determined that because of defendant’s criminal record it could not keep the promise regarding sentence and allowed defendant to withdraw those pleas. After suppression was denied, and faced with the prospect of immediate trial, defendant again entered the guilty pleas to the same two crimes, on the understanding that he would not receive persistent felony treatment or persistent violent felony offender treatment. At the time of the pleas, the People obtained from defendant neither a concession that denial of suppression did not influence his decision to plead guilty nor a waiver of his right to appeal the denial of suppression (see, People v Coles, 62 NY2d 908, 910, supra). As we have previously observed, in such situations an appellate court is rarely in a position to determine whether denial of a suppression motion played any part in a defendant’s decision to plead, making harmless error rules generally inapplicable in such situations (see, People v Grant, 45 NY2d 366, 379, supra). Here, however, defendant’s pleas prior to the suppression hearing leave no question regarding his independent motivation to plead guilty.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Titone concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.