From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Townsend

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 14, 1999
257 A.D.2d 458 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

January 14, 1999.

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


Since defendant's motion to withdraw his plea was made on different grounds, his claim that his plea was rendered involuntary by the court's failure to inquire about the affirmative defense to robbery in the first degree is unpreserved for appellate review ( People v. Rafael, 243 A.D.2d 277, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 836), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that defendant's plea was knowing and voluntary. There was nothing in defendant's allocution itself ( see, People v. Negron, 222 A.D.2d 327, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 882) that would raise the possibility of an affirmative defense or otherwise cast doubt on his guilt ( People v. Toxey, 86 N.Y.2d 725).

Defendant's statement concerning his ownership of pictures found in the complainant's wallet was spontaneous and voluntary in that the questions and remarks were directed to the complainant and were not calculated to elicit an incriminating response from defendant ( People v. Quinto, 245 A.D.2d 121). Accordingly, the suppression motion was properly denied.

Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Wallach, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Townsend

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 14, 1999
257 A.D.2d 458 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

People v. Townsend

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. HOLLIS TOWNSEND…

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

Date published: Jan 14, 1999

Citations

257 A.D.2d 458 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
683 N.Y.S.2d 253

Citing Cases

People v. John Young

Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that his plea was involuntary due to his claim that he was informed…

People v. Cutter

The court properly denied suppression of defendant's statements. The record supports the court's finding that…