People v. Sierra
| Decision Date | 28 December 1998 |
| Parties | 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 11,577 The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Jose SIERRA, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
M. Sue Wycoff, New York, N.Y. (Anders Kaye of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Roseann B. MacKechnie and Caroline R. Donhauser of counsel), for respondent.
JOHN COPERTINO, J.P., DANIEL W. JOY, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Leventhal, J.), both rendered December 6, 1996, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree under Indictment No. 1127/96 and murder in the second degree under Indictment No. 1139/96, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.
ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant contends that his plea of guilty to murder in the second degree was not voluntary because the court failed to inquire into a possible intoxication defense. This contention is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant did not move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment in the Supreme Court, Kings County, on this ground (see, People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5; People v. Claudio, 64 N.Y.2d 858, 487 N.Y.S.2d 318, 476 N.E.2d 644). The "rare case" exception to the preservation doctrine does not apply, as the defendant's factual recitation of the underlying facts of the crime during the plea proceeding established that his actions were intentional, and neither he nor his attorney suggested that he was unable to form the requisite criminal intent due to intoxication (see, People v. Ryan, 243 A.D.2d 869, 663 N.Y.S.2d 312; People v. Orr, 144 A.D.2d 391, 533 N.Y.S.2d 907; People v. Santana, 110 A.D.2d 789, 488 N.Y.S.2d 408). Under the circumstances, the defendant's statements to the police and in the presentence report do not cast significant doubt on his guilt or the voluntariness of his plea (see, People v. Toxey, 86 N.Y.2d 725, 631 N.Y.S.2d 119, 655 N.E.2d 160; People v. Lopez, supra).
Similarly, the defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that his plea to attempted murder in the second degree was involuntary. The defendant's recitation of the facts underlying the crime did not warrant an inquiry by the court as to a possible justification defense. Therefore, the exception to the preservation rule does not apply (see, People v. Bennett, 223 A.D.2d 431, 637 N.Y.S.2d 7).
The court was obligated to inquire further, however, when the defendant denied that he intended to kill the victim, as his statement negated an essential element of the crime (see, People v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Mills
...the count of murder in the second degree (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 667, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ; People v. Sierra, 256 A.D.2d 598, 599, 683 N.Y.S.2d 563 ; cf. People v. Riley, 91 A.D.2d 671, 457 N.Y.S.2d 122 ). There was nothing in the plea proceedings that triggered the ......
-
People v. Gomez
...of a justification defense in this case (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 667, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ; People v. Sierra, 256 A.D.2d 598, 599, 683 N.Y.S.2d 563 ; Matter of Brian K.J., 223 A.D.2d 643, 644, 636 N.Y.S.2d 417 ; cf. People v. Riley, 91 A.D.2d 671, 457 N.Y.S.2d 122 ). ......
-
People v. Keenum
...review ( see People v. Modesto, 39 A.D.3d 567, 835 N.Y.S.2d 220;People v. Harrell, 288 A.D.2d 489, 735 N.Y.S.2d 392;People v. Sierra, 256 A.D.2d 598, 599, 683 N.Y.S.2d 563). Moreover, the rare case exception to the preservation requirement is not applicable ( see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d ......
-
People v. Loftus
...plea allocution did not impose upon the County Court a duty to inquire about a possible intoxication defense (see People v. Sierra, 256 A.D.2d 598, 599, 683 N.Y.S.2d 563 ; People v. Suba, 130 A.D.2d 526, 527, 515 N.Y.S.2d 106 ). Moreover, since the defendant did not move to withdraw his ple......