People v. Holman

Decision Date17 October 2006
Docket Number2004-04563.
PartiesTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ERIK HOLMAN, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant made a timely motion to withdraw his plea of guilty to depraved indifference murder (see Penal Law § 125.25 [2]), pursuant to CPL 220.60 (3). Contrary to the defendant's contention, however, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion on the ground that the plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered in the presence of the defendant's counsel (see People v Palmer, 29 AD3d 606 [2006]; People v Molloy, 28 AD3d 681 [2006]; People v Rodriguez, 17 AD3d 267, 268 [2005]; People v Colon, 114 AD2d 967 [1985]). The plea contained an unrestricted waiver of all possible appellate claims, including the right to challenge the court's decision on his suppression motion (see People v Burke, 25 AD3d 722 [2006]). Thus, the defendant's challenge to the County Court's suppression determination is barred.

With respect to the factual sufficiency of the defendant's plea allocution, the County Court made an inquiry sufficient to conclude that the defendant meant to plead guilty to depraved indifference murder (see Penal Law § 125.25 [2]). Because the court inquired further to ensure that the plea was knowing and voluntary, and the defendant did not complain about the court's remedial action, the defendant "has waived any further challenge to the allocution, and thus no issue is preserved for our review" (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 668 [1988]).

Miller, J.P., Ritter, Spolzino and Dillon, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • People v. Nolasco
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 12 d3 Abril d3 2017
    ...N.E.2d 5 ; People v. Lovick, 127 A.D.3d at 1109, 5 N.Y.S.3d 878 ; People v. Antoine, 59 A.D.3d 560, 872 N.Y.S.2d 283 ; People v. Holman, 33 A.D.3d 815, 826 N.Y.S.2d 287 ) and, in any event, without merit.RIVERA, J.P., AUSTIN, ROMAN, HINDS–RADIX and CONNOLLY, JJ.,...
  • People v. Ramsey
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 2 d3 Abril d3 2014
    ...precluded ( see People v. Montane, 110 A.D.3d 1101, 1101, 974 N.Y.S.2d 257,lv. denied22 N.Y.3d 1089, 981 N.Y.S.2d 675;People v. Holman, 33 A.D.3d 815, 815, 826 N.Y.S.2d 287;People v. Sloane, 13 A.D.3d 400, 400, 785 N.Y.S.2d ...
  • People v. Holman
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 28 d3 Março d3 2007
    ...N.E.2d 459 8 N.Y.3d 923 PEOPLE v. HOLMAN. Court of Appeals of the State of New York. March 28, 2007. Appeal from 2d Dept.: 33 A.D.3d 815, 826 N.Y.S.2d 287 Application for leave to criminal appeal. Denied. (Pigott, J.). ...
  • People v. Frawley
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 17 d2 Outubro d2 2006

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