From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Figueroa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 1, 1994
207 A.D.2d 670 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

September 1, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.).


The exclusion in Penal Law § 265.02 (4) for possession of a weapon in one's place of business was not available to defendant since under no view of the evidence could the place where defendant was employed be found to encompass the sidewalk outside where defendant was arrested in possession of a gun (cf., People v. Powell, 54 N.Y.2d 524, 531). Nor did the trial court err in refusing to charge criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree as a lesser included offense of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (People v. Ali, 36 N.Y.2d 880, 882). Concerning defendant's adjudication as a second felony offender, defendant's claim that he was innocent of the prior crime does not raise a reviewable constitutional challenge to the prior conviction (People v Castaneda, 196 A.D.2d 760, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 848; see, People v Moore, 71 N.Y.2d 1002, 1005), and his bare conclusory assertion that he was coerced into pleading guilty by his co-defendants was insufficient to warrant a hearing in the face of plea minutes demonstrating that the plea was voluntarily given (see, People v Polanco, 192 A.D.2d 393; People v. Lopez, 192 A.D.2d 451, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 722).

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Figueroa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 1, 1994
207 A.D.2d 670 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Figueroa

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RAYMOND FIGUEROA…

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

Date published: Sep 1, 1994

Citations

207 A.D.2d 670 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
616 N.Y.S.2d 942

Citing Cases

People v. Solomon

The court's instruction on the "place of business" exception of Penal Law § 265.02 (4) was correct. Defendant…