People v. Bruno
| Decision Date | 06 February 1989 |
| Citation | 147 A.D.2d 490,537 N.Y.S.2d 588 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Robert BRUNO, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Borda, Wallace & Witty, Bay Shore (Richard Borda, of counsel), for appellant.
Patrick Henry, Dist. Atty., Riverhead (Michael J. Miller, of counsel; Jim Fekert, on the brief), for respondent.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and LAWRENCE, RUBIN, HARWOOD and BALLETTA, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Cacciabaudo, J.), convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claims regarding the sufficiency of the plea allocution are unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636, 467 N.Y.S.2d 355, 454 N.E.2d 938). It is apparent from a review of the sentencing minutes that the defendant's reference to being "pretty wasted on drugs" at the time of the robbery, was designed to elicit the court's sympathy and was not an assertion of innocence on the ground that he lacked the requisite intent due to intoxication. After a brief inquiry, the defendant assured the court that while he may have "been on drugs," he knew he was committing a crime. Furthermore, the defendant's detailed factual recitation of the robbery during his plea allocution "establishes that he was fully aware of what was occurring and what he was doing" (see, People v. Morrison, 58 A.D.2d 699, 699-700, 396 N.Y.S.2d 92). Under the circumstances of the case, the sentencing court was not required to conduct further inquiry as to the defendant's state of mind (see, People v. Suba, 130 A.D.2d 526, 515 N.Y.S.2d 106; People v. Santana, 110 A.D.2d 789, 488 N.Y.S.2d 408).
Lastly, we perceive no basis for concluding that the sentence imposed, which was the product of a negotiated plea, warrants modification in the interests of justice (People v. Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816, 475 N.Y.S.2d 351; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Smallwood
...(see, People v. Smith, 148 A.D.2d 980, 539 N.Y.S.2d 216, lv. denied 74 N.Y.2d 747, 545 N.Y.S.2d 122, 543 N.E.2d 765; People v. Bruno, 147 A.D.2d 490, 537 N.Y.S.2d 588). The People concede that the count alleging assault in the second degree was an inclusory concurrent count and that defenda......
-
People v. Cance
...the questions from County Court established that he was fully aware of what was occurring and what he was doing (see, People v. Bruno, 147 A.D.2d 490, 537 N.Y.S.2d 588). There is nothing to indicate that the plea was improvident, involuntary or unknowingly made (see, People v. Robideau, 133......
- People v. Rodriguez
-
People v. Farnham, 1
...and [were] not an assertion of innocence on the ground that he lacked the requisite intent due to intoxication" (People v. Bruno, 147 A.D.2d 490, 537 N.Y.S.2d 588). Moreover, defendant accepted the plea bargain to avoid exposure to a greater term of incarceration (see, People v. Paterno, 14......