People v Lee (Westly)

Annotate this Case
[*1] People v Lee (Westly) 2013 NY Slip Op 50056(U) Decided on January 16, 2013 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on January 16, 2013
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Shulman, Hunter, Jr., JJ
570413/10.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, - -

against

Westly Lee, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Matthew A. Sciarrino, J.) rendered March 11, 2010, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of trespass, and imposing sentence.


Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Matthew A. Sciarrino, J.), rendered March 11, 2010, affirmed.

Defendant's present challenge to the adequacy of his plea allocution, which does not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement, is unpreserved for appellate review since he failed to move to withdraw his guilty plea or seek to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. Defendant's counseled guilty plea to one count of trespass, a violation — with the understanding that he would be sentenced to one day of community service in full satisfaction of an information whose top count was a theft of services charge potentially punishable by a one-year jail sentence — was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. Further, a plea of guilty will be sustained in the absence of a full factual allocution where, as here, there is no indication that the guilty plea assented to by the defendant in the presence of counsel was improvident or baseless (see People v Fooks [People v Nixon], 21 NY2d 338, 350 [1967]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concurI concurI concur
Decision Date: January 16, 2013

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.