People v. Sobczak
| Decision Date | 07 November 1984 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Charles SOBCZAK, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Rose H. Sconiers by John Ziegler, Buffalo, for appellant.
Richard J. Arcara, Dist. Atty., by Jo Faber, Buffalo, for respondent.
Before DILLON, P.J., and CALLAHAN, DOERR, BOOMER and MOULE, JJ.
Defendant entered a plea of guilty to a charge of robbery in the first degree as set forth in the third count of the indictment. That count alleged that during the commission of the crime, defendant "displayed what appeared to be a revolver". On the plea allocution, defendant admitted that he displayed a revolver but stated that it contained no bullets. That assertion prompted the court to inquire "The gun wasn't loaded?" and defendant answered "No, sir."
It is an affirmative defense to robbery in the first degree that the weapon used during the commission of the crime was not loaded (Penal Law, § 160.15, subd. 4). It was thus error for the court to accept defendant's plea without making further inquiry to establish its basis (People v. Serrano, 15 N.Y.2d 304, 258 N.Y.S.2d 386, 206 N.E.2d 330; People v. Royster, 91 A.D.2d 1074, 459 N.Y.S.2d 16; People v. Hassan, 79 A.D.2d 713, 434 N.Y.S.2d 447).
We reject the People's argument that because defendant did not move to vacate his plea prior to sentencing, the issue is not preserved for review (see People v. Moore, 91 A.D.2d 1050, 458 N.Y.S.2d 649). It is the rule that a claimed deficiency in plea allocution is not preserved for review where it was not raised "by motion to vacate or otherwise in the court of first instance" (People v. Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636, 637, 467 N.Y.S.2d 355, 454 N.E.2d 938; People v. Bell, 47 N.Y.2d 839, 840, 418 N.Y.S.2d 584, 392 N.E.2d 570; People v. Warren, 47 N.Y.2d 740, 741, 417 N.Y.S.2d 251, 390 N.E.2d 1175 ). Obviously, the issue was raised, and thus preserved, where, as here, the defendant's affirmative statements that the gun was not loaded "should have alerted the court to the insufficiency of his guilty plea and should have led it initially to refuse that plea" (People v. Serrano, supra, 15 N.Y.2d p. 309, 258 N.Y.S.2d 386, 206 N.E.2d 330).
Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and facts, plea vacated and defendant remanded to Supreme Court, Erie County, for further proceedings on the indictment.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Angelakos
...v. Francis, 38 N.Y.2d 150, 319 N.Y.S.2d 21, 341 N.E.2d 540; Matter of Kim "F", App.Div., 487 N.Y.S.2d 31; People v. Sobczak, 105 A.D.2d 1053, 482 N.Y.S.2d 171 (4th Dept 1984); People v. Steedly, 50 Misc.2d 921, 271 N.Y.S.2d 752; McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.E......
-
People v. Bendross
...so, and thus defendant may challenge the sufficiency of the allocution on direct appeal (see, People v. Lopez, supra; People v. Sobczak, 105 A.D.2d 1053, 482 N.Y.S.2d 171). A burglary is committed when one "knowingly enters * * * a building with intent to commit a crime therein * * * " (Pen......
-
People v. Mosher
...Lopez, supra, at 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5; People v. Simone, 179 A.D.2d 694, 695, 578 N.Y.S.2d 261; People v. Sobczak, 105 A.D.2d 1053, 1053-1054, 482 N.Y.S.2d 171). Defendant's colloquy clearly raised a possible agency defense to the charge of criminal sale of a controlled subst......
-
People v. Costanza
...supra, at 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5; People v. Simone, 179 A.D.2d 694, 695, 578 N.Y.S.2d 261; see also, People v. Sobczak, 105 A.D.2d 1053, 1054, 482 N.Y.S.2d 171). The fact that defendant was not obliged to admit to the facts underlying the crime because he was pleading guilty to......