People
v.
Schneider

Not overruled or negatively treated on appealinfoCoverage
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth DepartmentMar 31, 1999
259 A.D.2d 1024 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
259 A.D.2d 1024689 N.Y.S.2d 893

Cases citing this case

How cited

  • People v. Spulka

    …In our view, the two-prong test for Alford pleas, which requires both the product of a voluntary, rational…

  • People v. Clemons

    …Also in the minutes was defendant's statement given to the arresting police investigator wherein he gave a…

lock 2 Citing caseskeyboard_arrow_right

March 31, 1999

Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Sirkin, J. — Criminal Mischief, 4th Degree.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that his Alford plea (see, North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25) should be vacated because the prosecutor failed to articulate on the record the proof that the People intended to offer at trial. By failing to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review (see, People v. Toxey, 86 N.Y.2d 725, 726, rearg denied 86 N.Y.2d 839; People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665; People v. Rice, 224 A.D.2d 972, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 883). Moreover, the plea colloquy does not cast significant doubt upon the voluntariness of the plea (see, People v. Lopez, supra, at 666). Defendant stated that he had discussed the strengths and weaknesses of the People's case at length with his attorney and that he wished to enter a plea to a reduced charge to avoid the possibility of conviction on the charges for which he was indicted. Further, County Court indicated that it had reviewed the Grand Jury minutes and was satisfied that there was a substantial likelihood that defendant would be convicted.

Present — Denman, P. J., Lawton, Hayes, Pigott, Jr., and Hurlbutt, JJ.