People v. Espinal
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Since defendant did not move to withdraw his plea prior to sentencing, and since there is nothing in his plea allocution that would cast doubt on his guilt or otherwise call into question the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725 [1995]), the court was under no obligation to conduct a sua sponte inquiry into statements he made to the probation officer preparing the presentence report (see e.g. People v Pantoja, 281 AD2d 245 [1st Dept 2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 905 [2001]). In any event, the statements at issue in the presentence report do *436not contradict defendant’s plea…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- People v. BeneventoNew York Court of Appeals · 1998
- People v. FordNew York Court of Appeals · 1995
- People v. LoveNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
- People v. ToxeyNew York Court of Appeals · 1995
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- People v. ArneyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- People v. CastroAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- ARNEY, SCOTT, PEOPLE vAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- People v. ArneyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- People v. CastroAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.