People v Nadal (Juan)

Annotate this Case
[*1] People v Nadal (Juan) 2007 NY Slip Op 52197(U) [17 Misc 3d 134(A)] Decided on November 16, 2007 Appellate Term, Second 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 16, 2007
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : RUDOLPH, P.J., LaCAVA and SCHEINKMAN, JJ
2002-11 W CR.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Juan Nadal, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Yonkers, Westchester County (Michael A. Martinelli, J.), rendered November 13, 2001. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the third degree.


Judgment of conviction affirmed.

Defendant pleaded guilty to assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00 [2]). On appeal, defendant contends that the court erred in reducing the charge from assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05) to assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00) because the latter charge is not a lesser included offense of the former charge.

It is well settled that, with few exceptions not applicable herein, a plea of guilty waives all nonjurisdictional defects in the plea proceeding (see People v Taylor, 65 NY2d 1, 5 [1985]). In any event, defendant pleaded guilty to alleged criminal activity that shared common elements, both in law and fact, with the crime charged in the original felony complaint (see People v Keizer, 100 NY2d 114, 119 [2003]). Consequently, the plea in this case was not invalid since defendant pleaded guilty to a lesser crime than that charged in the felony complaint (see People v White, 38 AD3d 320 [2007]; People v Mainello, 29 AD3d 1175 [2006]; People v Johnson, 217 AD2d 133 [1995]; see also People v Martinez, 81 NY2d 810, 812 [1993]). Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Rudolph, P.J., LaCava and Scheinkman, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: November 16, 2007

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.