From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Moody

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Dec 16, 2020
189 A.D.3d 1267 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

Opinion

2018–03134

12-16-2020

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Scott MOODY, appellant. (S.C.I. No. 277/17)

Thomas N.N. Angell, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Lawrence D. King of counsel), for appellant. William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kristen A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.


Thomas N.N. Angell, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Lawrence D. King of counsel), for appellant.

William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kristen A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, HECTOR D. LASALLE, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Edward T. McLoughlin, J.), rendered January 29, 2018, convicting him of failure to register and verify as a sex offender, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty to the charge of failure to register and verify as a sex offender was not voluntary because his factual allocution was insufficient to establish the legal sufficiency of the charge is unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see CPL 220.60[3], 440.10 ; People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ; People v. Colliton, 130 A.D.3d 642, 10 N.Y.S.3d 888 ). Moreover, the exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here because the defendant's allocution did not cast significant doubt on his guilt, negate an essential element of the crime, or call into question the voluntariness of his plea (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d at 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ; People v. Young, 88 A.D.3d 918, 931 N.Y.S.2d 235 ). In any event, the facts admitted by the defendant during his plea allocution were sufficient to support his plea of guilty, and there is no basis for assuming that the defendant might have pleaded improvidently or that he was unaware of what he was doing (see People v. Goldstein, 12 N.Y.3d 295, 301, 879 N.Y.S.2d 814, 907 N.E.2d 692 ; People v. Seeber, 4 N.Y.3d 780, 781, 793 N.Y.S.2d 826, 826 N.E.2d 797 ; People v. Colliton, 130 A.D.3d at 642, 10 N.Y.S.3d 888 ).

MASTRO, J.P., MILLER, DUFFY, LASALLE and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Moody

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Dec 16, 2020
189 A.D.3d 1267 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
Case details for

People v. Moody

Case Details

Full title:The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Scott Moody, appellant.

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Date published: Dec 16, 2020

Citations

189 A.D.3d 1267 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
134 N.Y.S.3d 190
2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 7593