From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Diggs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 20, 1996
224 A.D.2d 311 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

February 20, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Rena Uviller, J.).


The People's representation that the complainant, a tourist from abroad, was available to testify at defendant's trial, which defendant asserted to be false when the complainant did not appear at the trial of defendant's accomplice, does not require vacatur of defendant's plea, where, as the sentencing court found, the statement was made in good faith, and the plea was accepted upon admissions establishing defendant's guilt and otherwise appears to have been knowing, voluntary and intelligent ( see, People v. Jones, 44 N.Y.2d 76, 81-82, cert denied 439 U.S. 846). Defendant's other claim that his plea was coerced by the court is unpreserved as a matter of law, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. If we were to review it, we would find that the comments in question were a balanced discussion of the risks of going to trial.

Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Diggs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 20, 1996
224 A.D.2d 311 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

People v. Diggs

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CLARENCE DIGGS…

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

Date published: Feb 20, 1996

Citations

224 A.D.2d 311 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
638 N.Y.S.2d 439

Citing Cases

People v. Salgado

establishes that he made "a knowing and intelligent choice among alternative courses of action" (Conceicao,…

People v. Salgado

Defendant's claim that his plea was coerced by the court is also unpreserved for our review (see People v…