People v. Toxey
| Citation | 631 N.Y.S.2d 119,655 N.E.2d 160,86 N.Y.2d 725 |
| Parties | , 655 N.E.2d 160 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Anthony TOXEY, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 29 June 1995 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
In satisfaction of three separate indictments, appellant pleaded guilty to four counts of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15[4], after admitting to forcibly stealing property from four taxi cab drivers while displaying what appeared to be a weapon. On appeal, he seeks to vacate the plea, asserting that the trial court erred by failing to inquire at the guilty plea allocution whether defendant possessed a loaded, operable weapon. Defendant claims this obligation of the court was triggered by defendant's statement, "I don't carry weapons."
Defendant did not raise with the trial court the issue of the invalidity of the plea based on an alleged colloquy flaw or failure of the court to follow up. No motion to withdraw the plea pursuant to CPL 220.60(3) or motion to vacate the judgment of conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10 was made.
We conclude that defendant's utterances overall in this case did not engender "significant doubt" on the voluntariness of his plea. His plea allocution does not qualify for the narrow, "rare case" exception to the preservation doctrine described in People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5. Accordingly, appellant's claim on appeal was properly rejected by the Appellate Division and its order upholding the plea and conviction should be affirmed (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Johnson, 82 N.Y.2d 683, 685, 601 N.Y.S.2d 468, 619 N.E.2d 405).
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Peque
...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 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 [1988] ). Under certain ci......
-
People v. Peque
...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 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 [1988] ). Under certain ci......
-
People v. George
...unpreserved challenge are not present here (see, People v. Ubrich, supra, at 887, 666 N.Y.S.2d 825; see also, People v. Toxey, 86 N.Y.2d 725, 726, 631 N.Y.S.2d 119, 655 N.E.2d 160; People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665-666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d Defendant contends that the accusatory i......
-
People v. Williams
...the imposition of sentence to preserve a challenge to the validity of the plea for appellate review (see People v. Toxey, 86 N.Y.2d 725, 726, 631 N.Y.S.2d 119, 655 N.E.2d 160 [1995] ; People v. Claudio, 64 N.Y.2d 858, 858–859, 487 N.Y.S.2d 318, 476 N.E.2d 644 [1985] ). In a line of cases be......