People v. Clarke

Decision Date06 May 1999
Citation690 N.Y.S.2d 501,93 N.Y.2d 904,712 N.E.2d 668
PartiesTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. IAN CLARKE, Appellant.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Lynn W. L. Fahey,New York City, for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney of Kings County, Brooklyn (Diane R. Eisner and Roseann B. Mackechnie of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Chief Judge KAYE and Judges BELLACOSA, LEVINE, CIPARICK, WESLEY and ROSENBLATT concur; Judge SMITH taking no part.

OPINION OF THE COURTMEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.Defendant was convicted on a plea of guilty, the Appellate Division affirmed, and a Judge of this Court granted leave to appeal.The issue is whether defendant's claim, challenging the validity of the guilty plea, must be preserved before the trial court.Defendant argues that an ambiguous comment by the trial court, at the tail-end of the guilty plea proceeding and colloquy, rises to the level of a "mode of proceedings" concern.If so, he further urges, it was not necessary to preserve this challenge in the customarily required way.

We conclude that the challenge to the validity of the plea in this case had to be preserved and is not a "mode of proceedings" matter.The utterance, upon which defendant's claims hinge, was at most a "mere mistake" of language by the court(compare, People v Minaya,54 NY2d 360, 365, cert denied455 US 1024).The unassailable understanding at the plea proceeding by all participants as to what was functionally taking place, confirmed by their positions at sentencing, contradicts defendant's substantive reformulation, first advanced as an argument before the Appellate Division.The record convincingly demonstrates the trial...

To continue reading

Request your trial
72 cases
  • People v. Peque
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • November 19, 2013
    ...else file a motion to vacate the judgment of conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10 ( seeCPL 220.60[3]; 440.10; People v. Clarke, 93 N.Y.2d 904, 906, 690 N.Y.S.2d 501, 712 N.E.2d 668 [1999];People v. Toxey, 86 N.Y.2d 725, 726, 631 N.Y.S.2d 119, 655 N.E.2d 160 [1995];People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 66......
  • People v. Sirico
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • October 28, 2015
    ...the County Court (see CPL 220.60[3] ; People v. Peque, 22 N.Y.3d 168, 182, 980 N.Y.S.2d 280, 3 N.E.3d 617 ; People v. Clarke, 93 N.Y.2d 904, 906, 690 N.Y.S.2d 501, 712 N.E.2d 668 ; People v. Jackson, 114 A.D.3d 807, 979 N.Y.S.2d 704 ; People v. Ovalle, 112 A.D.3d 971, 977 N.Y.S.2d 401 ; Peo......
  • Antoine v. Ercole
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • August 29, 2013
    ...because he had not moved to withdraw his plea on that basis. People v. Antoine, 59 A.D.3d 560 (2d Dep't 2009) (citing People v. Clarke, 93 N.Y.2d 904, 906 (1999); People v. Perez, 51 A.D.3d 1043 (2d Dep't 2008); People v. Scoca, 38 A.D.3d 801 (2d Dep't 2007)).1. Adequate and Independent Sta......
  • Perez v. Miller
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • December 15, 2015
    ...requires Petitioner to preserve his challenge to the involuntariness of his plea prior to moving to appeal. See, e.g., People v. Clarke, 93 N.Y.2d 904, 906 (1999) ("this case does not qualify for the narrow, rare exception to the requirement that the claim of an invalid guilty plea must be ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT