sua sponte inquiry in New York

2013The plea allocution record establishes the voluntariness of the plea. “[Defendant said nothing about intoxication in his plea allocution itself, regardless of what he may have said on other occasions” (People v Wilson, 107 AD3d 532, 532 [1st Dept 2013]), and the court was “not required to make a sua sponte inquiry regarding defendant’s mention of intoxication” at other junctures (People v Fiallo, 6 AD3d 176, 177 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 640 [2004]).

2013The plea allocution record establishes the voluntariness of the plea. “[Defendant said nothing about intoxication in his plea allocution itself, regardless of what he may have said on other occasions” (People v Wilson, 107 AD3d 532, 532 [1st Dept 2013]), and the court was “not required to make a sua sponte inquiry regarding defendant’s mention of intoxication” at other junctures (People v Fiallo, 6 AD3d 176, 177 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 640 [2004]).

2012The statements attributed to the defendant in the presentence report did not call into question the voluntariness of the plea and did not obligate the court to conduct a sua sponte inquiry into the basis for the plea (see People v Kelly, 50 AD3d 921 [2008]; People v Jones, 41 AD3d 509, 510 [2007]; People v Bonilla, 299 AD2d 934, 935 [2002]; People v Pantoja, 281 AD2d 245, 246 [2001]).

2010Contrary to the further contention of defendant, the information in the presentence report and presentence memorandum concerning his medical condition “did not obligate the court to conduct a sua sponte inquiry” into a possible defense (People v Kelly, 50 AD3d 921, 921 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 960 [2008]; see People v Sands, 45 AD3d 414 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 816 [2008]; People v Bonilla, 299 AD2d 934, 935 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 580 [2003]).

2019Contrary to the defendant's contention, since he did not move to withdraw his plea prior to sentencing, and since there was nothing in his plea allocution that would cast doubt on his guilt or otherwise call into question the voluntariness of his plea, the Supreme Court was under no obligation to conduct a sua sponte inquiry into certain statements he made to the probation officers who prepared the presentence report and addendum thereto ( see People v Castro , 102 AD3d 546 , [*2]547; People v Espinal , 99 AD3d 435, 435-436 ; People v Pantoja , 281 AD2d 245, 246 ).

2012The statements attributed to the defendant in the presentence report did not call into question the voluntariness of the plea and did not obligate the court to conduct a sua sponte inquiry into the basis for the plea (see People v Kelly, 50 AD3d 921 [2008]; People v Jones, 41 AD3d 509, 510 [2007]; People v Bonilla, 299 AD2d 934, 935 [2002]; People v Pantoja, 281 AD2d 245, 246 [2001]).

2022Contrary to the defendant's contention, certain postplea statements attributed to the defendant in the presentence report did not obligate the sentencing court to conduct a sua sponte inquiry into the validity of the defendant's plea of guilty ( see People v Anderson , 170 AD3d 878 ; People v Najera , 170 AD3d 753 , 754; People v Sidique , 167 AD3d 665 ; People v Appling , 94 AD3d 1135, 1136 ).

2019Contrary to the defendant's contention, postplea statements attributed to the defendant in the presentence report and other statements at sentencing did not obligate the court to conduct a sua sponte inquiry into the basis for the plea ( see People v Bailey , 158 AD3d 948 , 949; People v Smith , 148 AD3d 939, 940 ; People v Maldonado , 144 AD3d 706, 707 ; People v Ellis , 142 AD3d 509, 510 ; People v Pastor , 136 AD3d 493 , affd 28 NY3d 1089 ; People v Upson , 134 AD3d 1058 ; People v Appling , 94 AD3d 1135, 1136 ).

2014Although the jury reached a verdict within an hour of the supplemental instructions, there is no indication that the unanimous verdict, confirmed by polling, resulted from any juror misconduct or a desire to avoid returning to court the next day (see People v Marshall, 106 AD3d 1, 10 [1st Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1006 [2013]; People v Haxhia, 81 AD3d 414 [1st Dept 2011] , lv denied 17 NY3d 796 [2011], cert denied 565 US —, 132 S Ct 1539 [2012]), and there was nothing to warrant a sua sponte inquiry.

2014Although the jury reached a verdict within an hour of the supplemental instructions, there is no indication that the unanimous verdict, confirmed by polling, resulted from any juror misconduct or a desire to avoid returning to court the next day (see People v Marshall, 106 AD3d 1, 10 [1st Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1006 [2013]; People v Haxhia, 81 AD3d 414 [1st Dept 2011] , lv denied 17 NY3d 796 [2011], cert denied 565 US —, 132 S Ct 1539 [2012]), and there was nothing to warrant a sua sponte inquiry.

2025Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court "was under no obligation to conduct a sua sponte inquiry into certain statements [he] made to the probation officer who prepared the presentence report" ( People v Ruiz-Solano , 188 AD3d 1267, 1268 ; see People v Loftus , 183 AD3d 631, 632 ; People v Ospina , 175 AD3d 513 , 514).

2025Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court "was under no obligation to conduct a sua sponte inquiry into certain statements [he] made to the probation officer who prepared the presentence report" ( People v Ruiz-Solano , 188 AD3d 1267, 1268; see People v Loftus , 183 AD3d 631, 632; People v Ospina , 175 AD3d 513, 514).

2010Contrary to the further contention of defendant, the information in the presentence report and presentence memorandum concerning his medical condition “did not obligate the court to conduct a sua sponte inquiry” into a possible defense (People v Kelly, 50 AD3d 921, 921 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 960 [2008]; see People v Sands, 45 AD3d 414 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 816 [2008]; People v Bonilla, 299 AD2d 934, 935 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 580 [2003]).

2009The 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 NY3d 736 [2008]; People v Sands, 45 AD3d 414, 415 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 816 [2008]; People v Jackson, 273 AD2d 937 [2000], Iv denied 95 NY2d 906 [2000]).

2021Under the facts presented, the court was not required to conduct a sua sponte inquiry based on defendant's post-arrest contention that the complainant "swung" at him, since defendant did not "reiterate those statements at [the] plea allocution" ( People v Martorell , 88 AD3d 485, 486 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 926 [2012][internal citation omitted]; see also People v Sosa , 172 AD3d 432 , 433 [2019]).All concur THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

2019However, a plea court's duty to make a sua sponte inquiry is not triggered by a defendant's postarrest statements when the defendant does "not reiterate those statements at [the] plea allocution" ( People v Martorell , 88 AD3d 485, 486 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 926 [2012]).

2025Rather, a reasonable limit to judges' inquiries is what occurs before them in open court ( see id. ["Where there is no suggestion from the allocution that the guilty plea is 'improvident or baseless,' there is obviously nothing to alert the trial court to a potential problem or to trigger a further inquiry"], quoting People v Nixon , 21 NY2d 338, 350 [1967]; People v Praileau , 110 AD3d 415, 416 [1st Dept 2013]["Defendant said nothing about intoxication in his plea allocution itself, regardless of what he may have said on other occasions, and the court was not required to make a sua sponte inq

2025Rather, a reasonable limit to judges' inquiries is what occurs before them in open court ( see id. ["Where there is no suggestion from the allocution that the guilty plea is 'improvident or baseless,' there is obviously nothing to alert the trial court to a potential problem or to trigger a further inquiry"], quoting People v Nixon , 21 NY2d 338, 350 [1967]; People v Praileau , 110 AD3d 415, 416 [1st Dept 2013]["Defendant said nothing about intoxication in his plea allocution itself, regardless of what he may have said on other occasions, and the court was not required to make a sua sponte inq

2018Contrary to the defendant's contention, certain postplea statements attributed to the defendant in the presentence report did not obligate the sentencing court to conduct a sua sponte inquiry into the validity of the defendant's plea of guilty ( see People v Ellis , 142 AD3d at 510 ; People v Appling , 94 AD3d 1135, 1136 ; People v Kelly , 50 AD3d 921, 921 ).

2018Contrary to the defendant's contention, certain postplea statements attributed to the defendant in the presentence report did not obligate the sentencing court to conduct a sua sponte inquiry into the validity of the defendant's plea of guilty ( see People v Ellis , 142 AD3d at 510 ; People v Appling , 94 AD3d 1135, 1136 ; People v Kelly , 50 AD3d 921, 921 ).

2026People v Simmons , 146 AD3d 560, 560 [1st Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 952 [2017]; People v Brimmage , 143 AD3d 624, 625 [1st Dept 2016, lv denied 28 NY3d 1143 [2017]).

2017People v Brimmage, 143 AD3d 624 [1st Dept 2016]; People v Praileau, 110 AD3d 415 [1st Dept 2013], Iv denied 22 NY3d 1202 [2014]; People v Pantoja, 281 AD2d 245 [1st Dept 2001], Iv denied 96 NY2d 905 [2001]).

2025Defendant was rational and coherent throughout the plea proceedings, wherein he capably responded to the questions put to him, and gave no indication of mental impairment ( see People v Ward , 168 AD3d 432, 433 [2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 955 [2019]; People v Rodriguez, 83 AD3d 449, 449 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 800 [2011]).

2025Defendant was rational and coherent throughout the plea proceedings, wherein he capably responded to the questions put to him, and gave no indication of mental impairment ( see People v Ward , 168 AD3d 432 , 433 [2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 955 [2019]; People v Rodriguez, 83 AD3d 449, 449 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 800 [2011]).

2016Moreover, his statements amount to " situational coercion' " that "does not undermine the voluntariness of [a] guilty plea" ( People v Morey , 110 AD3d 1378 , 1379 [2013], quoting People v Seaberg , 74 NY2d 1, 8 [1989]; see People v Miner , 120 AD3d 1449 , 1450 [2014]).

2001Defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal forecloses review of his excessive sentence claim (People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 9-10 ).

2007Furthermore, the statements attributed to the defendant in the presentence report were not inconsistent with the admissions he made at the plea allocution, and did not cast doubt upon his guilt or obligate the court to conduct a sua sponte inquiry into the basis for the plea (see People v Bonilla, 299 AD2d 934 [2002]; People v Toussaint, 294 AD2d 129 [2002]; People v Pantoja, 281 AD2d 245 [2001]; see also People v Morales, 17 AD3d 487 [2005]).

2002“Since nothing in defendant’s plea allocution cast doubt on the voluntariness of his plea * * * and since defendant made no motion to withdraw his plea, the court was under no obligation to conduct a sua sponte inquiry into defendant’s denial of guilt to the probation officer preparing the presentence report” (Pantoja, 281 AD2d at 246 ; see People v Toussaint, 294 AD2d 129 ; see also People v Young, 281 AD2d 950 , Iv denied 96 NY2d 909 ).

2026The defendant's contention that the County Court should have conducted a sua sponte inquiry into the voluntariness of his plea in light of certain statements he made at the sentencing proceeding is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit ( see People v Rios , ___ NY3d ___, ___, 2026 NY Slip Op 00963, *3 ; People v Ormsby , 207 AD3d 573 ; People v Steele , 197 AD3d 512, 512-513 ; People v Ruiz-Solano , 188 AD3d 1267, 1268 ).

2025Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court "was under no obligation to conduct a sua sponte inquiry into certain statements [he] made to the probation officer who prepared the presentence report" ( People v Ruiz-Solano , 188 AD3d 1267, 1268; see People v Loftus , 183 AD3d 631, 632; People v Ospina , 175 AD3d 513, 514).

2024Under these circumstances, the narrow exception to the preservation requirement is inapplicable ( see People v McQuilla , 210 AD3d 1191, 1191-1192 [3d Dept 2022]; People [*2]v Fauntleroy , 206 AD3d 1347 , 1347-1348 [3d Dept 2022]), and defendant's subsequent and similar "statements to the Probation Department did not impose a duty on County Court to conduct a sua sponte inquiry concerning a potential . . . defense" ( People v Fauntleroy , 206 AD3d at 1348; see People v Lomack , 217 AD3d at 1282-1283 ; People v Rodriguez , 206 AD3d 1383, 1384 [3d Dept 2022]; People v Lorenzo-Perez , 203 AD3d 84

2023Also contrary to the defendant's contention, his postplea statements reflected in the presentence report did not obligate the court to conduct a sua sponte inquiry concerning his usage of drugs ( see People v Lorenzo-Perez , 203 AD3d 847, 848 ).

2021Moreover, the Supreme Court was under no obligation to conduct a sua sponte inquiry as to certain statements made by the defendant at the sentencing proceeding ( see People v Brassard , 166 AD3d 1312 , 1313; compare People v Pastor , 28 NY3d 1089, 1090-1091 ).

2019Contrary to the defendant's contention, postplea statements attributed to the defendant in the presentence report and other statements at sentencing did not obligate the court to conduct a sua sponte inquiry into the basis for the plea ( see People v Bailey , 158 AD3d 948 , 949; People v Smith , 148 AD3d 939, 940 ; People v Maldonado , 144 AD3d 706, 707 ; People v Ellis , 142 AD3d 509, 510 ; People v Pastor , 136 AD3d 493 , affd 28 NY3d 1089 ; People v Upson , 134 AD3d 1058 ; People v Appling , 94 AD3d 1135, 1136 ).