PEOPLE v. DAVIS, 24 N.Y.3d 1012 (2014)
Court: Court of Appeals of New York
Number: innyco20141120390
Visitors: 7
Filed: Nov. 20, 2014
Latest Update: Nov. 20, 2014
Summary: OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Defendant failed to bring a motion to withdraw his plea under CPL 220.60 (3) or a motion to vacate the judgment of conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10. Nor did his factual recitation negate the intent element of the crime to which he pleaded guilty. His plea therefore does not qualify for the "rare case" exception to the preservation requirement under People v Lopez ( 71 N.Y.2d 662 , 666 [1988]). Consequ
Summary: OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Defendant failed to bring a motion to withdraw his plea under CPL 220.60 (3) or a motion to vacate the judgment of conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10. Nor did his factual recitation negate the intent element of the crime to which he pleaded guilty. His plea therefore does not qualify for the "rare case" exception to the preservation requirement under People v Lopez ( 71 N.Y.2d 662 , 666 [1988]). Conseque..
More
OPINION OF THE COURT
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant failed to bring a motion to withdraw his plea under CPL 220.60 (3) or a motion to vacate the judgment of conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10. Nor did his factual recitation negate the intent element of the crime to which he pleaded guilty. His plea therefore does not qualify for the "rare case" exception to the preservation requirement under People v Lopez (71 N.Y.2d 662, 666 [1988]). Consequently, defendant's challenge to the factual sufficiency of his allocution "was properly rejected by the Appellate Division and its order upholding the plea and conviction should be affirmed" (People v Toxey, 86 N.Y.2d 725, 726 [1995]).
Source: Leagle
