From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Freeman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 24, 1993
198 A.D.2d 725 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

November 24, 1993

Appeal from the County Court of Rensselaer County (Ceresia, Jr., J.).


Defendant contends that County Court erred in permitting the indictment upon which defendant was arraigned to be amended by substituting defendant's name for one of the original "John Doe" defendants. According to defendant, the Grand Jury evidence was insufficient to establish the identity of the person to be charged with the particular crimes. Defendant's guilty plea is an admission of factual guilt (see, People v Thomas, 53 N.Y.2d 338) and precludes him from raising all issues related to his indictment, except jurisdictional ones (see, People v Hunt, 148 A.D.2d 836). Among the issues waived or forfeited by a guilty plea are challenges to the legal sufficiency of the Grand Jury evidence (see, CPL 210.30; People v Cohen, 52 N.Y.2d 584, 587), including those raising the issue of identity (see, People v Spears, 106 A.D.2d 417, 418). Defendant is therefore precluded from raising the issue which he seeks to raise on this appeal, and the judgment must be affirmed.

Crew III, J.P., Cardona, White and Mahoney, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Freeman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 24, 1993
198 A.D.2d 725 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

People v. Freeman

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RONALD T. FREEMAN…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Nov 24, 1993

Citations

198 A.D.2d 725 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
604 N.Y.S.2d 629

Citing Cases

People v. Freeman

Turning to the issues raised by defendant in his pro se brief, we are similarly unpersuaded that grounds for…

People v. Cunningham

Having pleaded guilty, defendant has forfeited his right to challenge the legal sufficiency of the Grand Jury…