People v. Phillips, 30 A.D.3d 911 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Phillips, 30 A.D.3d 911 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …county court had no duty to conduct an inquiry concerning the potential defense of intoxication based upon comments made by defendant during the . . . sentencing proceeding ✓
18 citation events (18 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Nolan (nyappdiv, 2024-02-08)
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Nolan
N.Y. App. Div. · 2024 · confidence medium
Furthermore, "County Court had no duty to conduct an inquiry concerning the potential defense of intoxication based upon comments made by defendant during the Probation Department's presentence investigation" ( People v Phillips , 30 AD3d 911, 911 [3d Dept 2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 869 [2006]; see People v [*2]Hardie , 211 AD3d 1418, 1420 [3d Dept 2022], lv denied 39 NY3d 1111 [2023]; People v McQuilla , 210 AD3d 1191, 1192 [3d Dept 2022]; People v Fauntleroy , 206 AD3d 1347 , 1348 [3d Dept 2022]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Hopper
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Contrary to defendant’s argument, the arrest report and witnesses’ depositions submitted to County Court before the plea colloquy did not suggest that defendant was intoxicated at the time of the crime, and the postplea comments subsequently made by defendant during the Probation Department’s presentence investigation regarding his intoxication do not impose a duty of inquiry upon County Court concerning a potential intoxication defense (see People v Larock, 139 AD3d 1241, 1242 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 932 [2016]; People v Buck, 136 AD3d at 1118 n 2; People v Phillips, 30 AD3d 911, 911 …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Vogt
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the court had no duty to engage in an additional inquiry regarding a possible justification defense. “ ‘[N]othing [defendant] said [during the plea colloquy] raised the possibility of a viable justification defense’ ” (People v Manor, 121 AD3d 1581 , 1582 [2014], affd 27 NY3d 1012 [2016]; see People v Wilson, 107 AD3d 532 , 532 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1160 [2014], denied reconsideration 23 NY3d 1069 [2014]; cf. People v Ponder, 34 AD3d 1314, 1315 [2006]), and the court “had no duty to conduct an inquiry concerning the potential defense …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. McKnight
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Thus, County Court “had no duty to conduct an inquiry concerning the potential defense of intoxication based upon comments made by defendant during . . . the sentencing proceeding” (People v Phillips, 30 AD3d 911, 911 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 869 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Austin
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Contrary to defendant’s further contention, he did not make any statements during the plea colloquy that cast doubt upon his guilt or negated an essential element of the crime so as to trigger the narrow exception to the preservation rule or obligate County Court to inquire as to a potential intoxication defense (see People v Buck, 136 AD3d 1117 , 1118 n 2 [2016]; People v Pearson, 110 AD3d 1116, 1116 [2013]; People v Jones, 73 AD3d 1386, 1387 [2010]; People v Phillips, 30 AD3d 911, 911 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 869 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Buck
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Postplea comments subsequently made by a defendant during the Probation Department presentence investigation do not impose a duty of inquiry upon a trial court concerning potential defenses (see People v Pearson, 110 AD3d 1116, 1116 [2013]; People v Phillips, 30 AD3d 911, 911 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 869 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Buck
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Postplea comments subsequently made by a defendant during the Probation Department presentence investigation do not impose a duty of inquiry upon a trial court concerning potential defenses (see People v Pearson, 110 AD3d 1116, 1116 [2013]; People v Phillips, 30 AD3d 911, 911 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 869 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Pearson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
These claims are not preserved for our review, however, as the record fails to reflect that defendant moved to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Campbell, 81 AD3d 1184, 1185 [2011]; People v Jones, 73 AD3d 1386, 1387 [2010]; People v Phillips, 30 AD3d 911, 911 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 869 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Pearson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
These claims are not preserved for our review, however, as the record fails to reflect that defendant moved to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Campbell, 81 AD3d 1184, 1185 [2011]; People v Jones, 73 AD3d 1386, 1387 [2010]; People v Phillips, 30 AD3d 911, 911 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 869 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Jones
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
As defendant did not move to withdraw his plea or vacate his judgment of conviction, his contention is not preserved for review (see People v Phillips, 30 AD3d 911, 911 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 869 [2006]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Steven C. Phillips
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 29, 2006.
30 A.D.3d 911
III.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published
Crew III, J.P.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Otsego County (Burns, J.), rendered December 5, 2003, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of sodomy in the first degree.

Defendant agreed to waive indictment and proceed on a superior court information charging him with sodomy in the first degree. Following several conferences, a plea agreement was reached whereby defendant agreed to plead guilty to the sole charge and waive his right to appeal with the understanding that he would be sentenced to 17 years in prison and five years of postrelease supervision. County Court thereafter accepted defendant’s plea of guilty and subsequently sentenced him in accordance with the plea agreement. Defendant now appeals, arguing that his plea of guilty was involuntary.

Defendant contends that County Court should have made an inquiry into his knowledge and waiver of a possible defense of intoxication. As defendant has not moved to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction, this argument is not preserved for appellate review (see People v Beach, 306 AD2d 753, 754 [2003]; People v Keyes, 300 AD2d 909, 909-910 [2002]). Nonetheless, were we to review this claim, we would find it to be without merit.

The plea transcript indicates that defendant’s plea was knowing, voluntary and intelligent and that he admitted engaging in the conduct alleged. Significantly, defendant did not make any statements during the plea allocution that tended to negate any element of the crime or raise the issue of his intoxication (see People v Fiallo, 6 AD3d 176, 177 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 640 [2004]; People v Beach, supra at 754), and County Court had no duty to conduct an inquiry concerning the potential defense of intoxication based upon comments made by defendant during the Probation Department’s presentence investigation or the sentencing proceeding (see People v Fiallo, supra at 177; People v Jordan, 292 AD2d 860, 861 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 698 [2002]; People v Harris, 251 AD2d 79 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 925 [1998]).

Peters, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.