Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John BEUTHER, Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Bruhn, J.), rendered February 9, 1996, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of escape in the first degree.
Defendant, a State prison inmate, pleaded guilty to escape in the first degree in full satisfaction of a seven-count indictment. On appeal he contends that the plea allocution was insufficient. However, insofar as defendant never moved to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, he has failed to preserve this argument for appellate review (see, People v. Colon, 217 A.D.2d 725, 629 N.Y.S.2d 110). In any event, we reject defendant's claim that County Court failed to elicit sufficient facts from him so as to establish each and every element of the crime to which he was pleading guilty. As long as an allocution does not negate an essential element of the crime pleaded to, “the failure of a pleading defendant to recite every element of the crime does not necessarily suggest that the plea of guilty is improvident or baseless so as to trigger a duty on the part of the court to inquire further” (People v. Washington, 228 A.D.2d 457, 643 N.Y.S.2d 415; see, People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666 n. 2, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5). Here, there is nothing to indicate that the plea was improvident or baseless. Defendant not only admitted all of the elements of escape in the first degree after they were recited by County Court, but also set forth all of the elements in his own factual recitation (see, Penal Law § 205.15[1] ).
As to defendant's claim regarding the sufficiency of the Grand Jury minutes, this contention was also waived by the plea of guilty (see, People v. Bennett, 183 A.D.2d 905, 586 N.Y.S.2d 895, lvs denied 80 N.Y.2d 901, 588 N.Y.S.2d 826, 602 N.E.2d 234, 80 N.Y.2d 903, 588 N.Y.S.2d 828, 602 N.E.2d 236). The remaining issues raised by defendant have been examined and rejected for lack of merit.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
MIKOLL, Justice Presiding.
CREW, YESAWICH, SPAIN and CARPINELLO, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: February 06, 1997
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)