People v. Horton

4 Citing cases

  1. People v. Gray

    162 A.D.3d 1248 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)   Cited 7 times

    We find defendant's challenge to the severity of the sentence to be without merit. The agreed-upon sentence was not harsh or excessive inasmuch as it was the statutory minimum prison term for a second felony offender convicted of a class D felony (see Penal Law § 70.06[2], [3][d] ; People v. Horton, 140 A.D.3d 1525, 1525, 33 N.Y.S.3d 777 [2016] ). Defendant's remaining contentions raised in his pro se brief have been reviewed and are without merit.

  2. People v. Chin

    160 A.D.3d 1038 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)   Cited 14 times

    Defendant contends that his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent and that he should have been given an opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea based upon a statement that he had made at sentencing that raised the potential defense of justification. Although the record does not disclose that defendant made the appropriate postallocution motion required of him to adequately preserve this claim for our review (seePeople v. Horton, 140 A.D.3d 1525, 1525, 33 N.Y.S.3d 777 [2016] ; People v. Morgan, 84 A.D.3d 1594, 1594, 922 N.Y.S.2d 666 [2011], lv denied 17 N.Y.3d 819, 929 N.Y.S.2d 808, 954 N.E.2d 99 [2011] ), we find that defendant made statements at sentencing that cast doubt upon his guilt and the voluntariness of his plea, thus triggering the narrow exception to the preservation requirement and imposing a duty upon County Court "to inquire further to ensure that defendant's guilty plea [was] knowing and voluntary" ( People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 [1988] ; seePeople v. Busch–Scardino, 158 A.D.3d 988, 989, 71 N.Y.S.3d 694 [2018] ; People v. Lang, 127 A.D.3d 1253, 1255, 7 N.Y.S.3d 618 [2015] ; People v. Morehouse, 109 A.D.3d 1022, 1022, 972 N.Y.S.2d 729 [2013] ). A trial court " 'should conduct a hearing [or further inquiry] when at plea-taking or upon sentencing it appears the defendant misapprehends the nature of the charges or the consequences of [the] plea' " ( People v. Gresham, 151 A.D.3d 1175, 1177, 57 N.Y.S

  3. People v. Franklin

    146 A.D.3d 1082 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)   Cited 27 times

    With respect to defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, defendant's present contentions—that counsel failed to properly investigate his case and provided inadequate or erroneous advice—implicate matters outside of the record and, as such, are more appropriately addressed in the context of a CPL article 440 motion (see People v. Clapper, 133 A.D.3d 1037, 1038, 20 N.Y.S.3d 452 [2015], lv. denied 27 N.Y.3d 995, 38 N.Y.S.3d 105, 59 N.E.3d 1217 [2016] ; People v. Alnutt, 107 A.D.3d 1139, 1144–1145, 968 N.Y.S.2d 634 [2013], lv. denied 22 N.Y.3d 1136, 983 N.Y.S.2d 495, 6 N.E.3d 614 [2014] ). To the extent that the balance of defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim impacts the voluntariness of his plea, such claim is unpreserved for our review in the absence of an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v. Horton, 140 A.D.3d 1525, 1525, 33 N.Y.S.3d 777 [2016] ; People v. Islam, 134 A.D.3d 1348, 1349, 21 N.Y.S.3d 648 [2015] ). "Further, the narrow exception to the preservation rule was not triggered here, as defendant did not make any statements during the plea allocution that negated an essential element of the crime or otherwise cast doubt upon his guilt" (People v. Perkins, 140 A.D.3d 1401, 1403, 33 N.Y.S.3d 584 [2016] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted] ).

  4. People v. Laflower

    145 A.D.3d 1341 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)   Cited 6 times

    Defendant's sole contention is that his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent. Preliminarily, we note that, inasmuch as defendant failed to make an appropriate postallocution motion, this claim is unpreserved for our review (see People v. Lunan, 141 A.D.3d 947, 948, 34 N.Y.S.3d 913 [2016] ; People v. Horton, 140 A.D.3d 1525, 1525, 33 N.Y.S.3d 777 [2016] ). Nevertheless, we find that the narrow exception to the preservation rule is applicable because defendant's statement during the plea colloquy that he had no recollection of committing the crime due to drug use raises the unaddressed question of his ability to form the intent to forcibly steal property, an essential element of the crime of attempted robbery (see Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.10 ; People v. Mateo, 13 A.D.3d 987, 988, 786 N.Y.S.2d 671 [2004], lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 883, 808 N.Y.S.2d 586, 842 N.E.2d 484 [2005] ; see generally People v. Serrano, 15 N.Y.2d 304, 308–309, 258 N.Y.S.2d 386, 206 N.E.2d 330 [1965] ). Under these circumstances, defendant's statement "casts significant doubt upon [his] guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea," such that County Court was required to conduct a further inquiry to ensure that defendant's guilty plea was knowing and voluntary (People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5, 525 N.E.2d