PEOPLE v. SOTO (2000)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Cesar SOTO, a/k/a Caesrluis Soto, a/k/a Louis Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: June 16, 2000

PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., WISNER, SCUDDER and LAWTON, JJ.

John A. Cirando, Syracuse, for Defendant-Appellant. Edward M. Sharkey, Little Valley, for Plaintiff-Respondent.

The waiver by defendant of the right to appeal as part of his negotiated plea agreement encompasses his present challenge to County Court's adverse suppression ruling (see, People v. Kemp, 94 N.Y.2d 831, 833, 703 N.Y.S.2d 59, 724 N.E.2d 754). By failing to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, defendant failed to preserve for our review his present challenge to the voluntariness of the plea (see, People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665-666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5). When defendant indicated that he did not remember the circumstances of the crime because he was “not in [his] right mind” at the time, the court properly made additional inquiry to ascertain that defendant understood that, by entering a plea of guilty, he was waiving the right to raise as a defense “that you weren't in your right mind” (see, People v. Lopez, supra, at 667-668, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5). The bargained-for sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe.

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM:

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network