People v Gibson (Rufus)

Annotate this Case
[*1] People v Gibson (Rufus) 2016 NY Slip Op 50728(U) Decided on May 11, 2016 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on May 11, 2016
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Hunter, Jr., Ling-Cohan, JJ.
570072/12

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Rufus Gibson, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), rendered December 19, 2011, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), rendered December 19, 2011, affirmed.

Defendant's guilty plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v Conceicao, 26 NY3d 375, 382 [2015]; People v Sougou, 26 NY3d 1052, 1054 [2015]). During the plea proceedings, defense counsel waived formal allocution and, in response to the court's questioning, defendant personally confirmed that he was pleading guilty of his own free will and that he understood that he was giving up the "right to go to trial, at which the People have the burden of proving [his] guilt beyond a reasonable doubt," as well as "other rights in connection with this case." Thus, the record as a whole establishes defendant's understanding and waiver of his constitutional rights (see Boykin v Alabama, 395 US 238 [1969]), despite the absence of a full enumeration of all the rights waived during the course of the allocution (see People v Sougou, 26 NY3d at 1054; People v Simmons, __ AD3d __, 2016 NY Slip Op 02904 [1st Dept. 2016]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.


I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: May 11, 2016

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.