People v. Stone
| Decision Date | 31 January 2012 |
| Citation | 91 A.D.3d 977,937 N.Y.S.2d 630,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 00814 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Torrell STONE, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Diane E. Selker, Peekskill, N.Y., for appellant.
Thomas P. Zugibe, District Attorney, New City, N.Y. (Itamar J. Yeger of counsel; Selha R. Abed on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.), rendered April 9, 2008, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea allocution is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Toxey, 86 N.Y.2d 725, 726, 631 N.Y.S.2d 119, 655 N.E.2d 160). Moreover, the “rare case” exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here because the defendant's allocution did not cast significant doubt on his guilt, negate an essential element of the crime, or call into question the voluntariness of his plea *631 ( People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5; see People v. Young, 88 A.D.3d 918, 931 N.Y.S.2d 235). In any event, the facts admitted by the defendant during his plea allocution were sufficient to support his plea of guilty ( see People v. Goldstein, 12 N.Y.3d 295, 301, 879 N.Y.S.2d 814, 907 N.E.2d 692; People v. Seeber, 4 N.Y.3d 780, 781, 793 N.Y.S.2d 826, 826 N.E.2d 797; People v. Fooks, 21 N.Y.2d 338, 350, 287 N.Y.S.2d 659, 234 N.E.2d 687, cert. denied sub nom. Robinson v. New York, 393 U.S. 1067, 89 S.Ct. 721, 21 L.Ed.2d 709).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Ramos
...465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ; see People v. Davis, 24 N.Y.3d 1012, 1013, 997 N.Y.S.2d 115, 21 N.E.3d 568 ; People v. Stone, 91 A.D.3d 977, 977, 937 N.Y.S.2d 630 ). In any event, the defendant's contention that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent is without merit. Contrary to the defe......
-
People v. Barrett
...review ( seeCPL 470.05 [2]; People v. Toxey, 86 N.Y.2d 725, 726, 631 N.Y.S.2d 119, 655 N.E.2d 160;People v. Stone, 91 A.D.3d 977, 977, 937 N.Y.S.2d 630). Moreover, the “rare case” exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here because the defendant's allocution did not cast s......
-
People v. Peralta
...1012, 1013, 997 N.Y.S.2d 115, 21 N.E.3d 568 ; People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ; People v. Stone, 91 A.D.3d 977, 977, 937 N.Y.S.2d 630 ).In any event, the defendant's contention that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent is without merit. Co......
-
People v. Blanco
...v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ; People v. Ramos, 164 A.D.3d at 922–923, 82 N.Y.S.3d 103 ; People v. Stone, 91 A.D.3d 977, 937 N.Y.S.2d 630 ). In any event, the record demonstrates that the defendant's pleas were knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entere......