At page 415 “Defendant did not preserve his claim that his plea allocution was insufficient because the court did not inquire about a possible defense, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.”6 citing cases
- People v. Scarborough, 2022 NY Slip Op 03282 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2022).publishedFinally, defendant's denials concerning her consumption of alcohol on the night of the charged offense during her Probation Department interview were not reiterated when she entered her de novo guilty plea; therefore, there was no duty imp…
- People v. Brown, 2022 NY Slip Op 02917 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2022).publishedPeople v Gresham , 151 AD3d 1175, 1178 [3d Dept 2017]), we reiterate that a trial court has no duty, in the absence of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, to conduct a further inquiry concerning the plea's voluntariness "based upon comment…
- People v. Belcher-Cumba, 2022 NY Slip Op 00691 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2022).publishedDefendant's related claim — that the statements embodied in his pro se motion imposed a duty of inquiry upon County Court — is unpersuasive, as defendant failed to reiterate such representations during the course of the plea colloquy ( see…
- People v. Rodriguez, 144 A.D.3d 498 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2016).published“The court’s duty to inquire was not triggered by statements defendant may have made at junctures other than the plea proceeding itself” (People v Sands, 45 AD3d 414, 415 [1st Dept 2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 816 [2008]), or by other informat…
- People v. Kinney, 94 A.D.3d 641 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2012).published“The court’s duty to inquire [is] not triggered by statements [that a] defendant may have made at junctures other than the plea proceeding itself’ (People v Sands, 45 AD3d 414, 415 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 816 [2008]).
- People v. Garbarini, 64 A.D.3d 1179 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2009).publishedThe plea allocution established defendant’s guilt, and we note that the court had no obligation to conduct a sua sponte inquiry in response to defendant’s statement at sentencing (see People v Frempong, 51 AD3d 506 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3…
Other citing cases
- People v. Connolly, 70 A.D.3d 1510 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2010).published
v.
Patrick Sands
[*415] Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J.), rendered September 19, 2005, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of eight years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the sentence to a term of six years, and otherwise affirmed.
Defendant did not preserve his claim that his plea allocution was insufficient because the court did not inquire about a possible defense, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. The narrow exception to the preservation rule explained in People v Lopez (71 NY2d 662, 665-666 [1988]) does not apply since defendant’s factual allocution does not cast significant doubt on his guilt. The court’s duty to inquire was not triggered by statements defendant may have made at junctures other than the plea proceeding itself (see e.g. People v Blackwell, 41 AD3d 121 [2007]; People v Fiallo, 6 AD3d 176 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 640 [2004]; People v Negron, 222 AD2d 327 [1995], lv denied 88 NY2d 882 [1996]). Were we to review this claim, we would find that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily pleaded guilty.
We find the sentence excessive to the extent indicated.
We have considered the claims raised in defendant’s pro se supplemental brief and find them without merit. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Catterson and Kavanagh, JJ.