×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
New York Supreme Court Denies Challenge to the Voluntariness of Plea
The Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, denied a prisoner’s challenge of the voluntariness of his plea agreement despite waiving his right to appeal.
Claudio Nunez was charged in Sullivan County with aggravated harassment of a guard by a prisoner and two counts of assault in the second degree for throwing feces at one guard and injuring another. After negotiating a plea agreement, Nunez signed a written waiver of appeal and pled guilty to the aggravated harassment and one count of assault. Nunez challenges that his plea was not voluntary.
On appeal, the Court affirmed Nunez’s conviction stating that there was no evidence that the appellant’s plea was involuntary. Nunez’s challenge to the voluntariness of his plea supersedes his waiver of the right to appeal, but the issue was not preserved for the review because he did not move to withdraw his plea or vacate the underlying judgment of the conviction. Contrary to Nunez’s assertion, the narrow exception to the preservation requirement is not triggered here because he did not make any statements during the plea allocution that were inconsistent with his guilt. The plea allocution also reflects that Nunez was advised of his right to a jury trial, that the People had an obligation to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the jury’s verdict had to be unanimous.
Nunez indicated that he understood these rights and denied that he had been forced or threatened into waiving these rights. The Supreme Court concluded that Nunez’s plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. See: People v. Nunez, 56 A.D.3d 897; 867 N.Y.S.2d 267 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008).
Claudio Nunez was charged in Sullivan County with aggravated harassment of a guard by a prisoner and two counts of assault in the second degree for throwing feces at one guard and injuring another. After negotiating a plea agreement, Nunez signed a written waiver of appeal and pled guilty to the aggravated harassment and one count of assault. Nunez challenges that his plea was not voluntary.
On appeal, the Court affirmed Nunez’s conviction stating that there was no evidence that the appellant’s plea was involuntary. Nunez’s challenge to the voluntariness of his plea supersedes his waiver of the right to appeal, but the issue was not preserved for the review because he did not move to withdraw his plea or vacate the underlying judgment of the conviction. Contrary to Nunez’s assertion, the narrow exception to the preservation requirement is not triggered here because he did not make any statements during the plea allocution that were inconsistent with his guilt. The plea allocution also reflects that Nunez was advised of his right to a jury trial, that the People had an obligation to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the jury’s verdict had to be unanimous.
Nunez indicated that he understood these rights and denied that he had been forced or threatened into waiving these rights. The Supreme Court concluded that Nunez’s plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. See: People v. Nunez, 56 A.D.3d 897; 867 N.Y.S.2d 267 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
People v. Nunez
| Year | 2008 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 56 A.D.3d 897; 867 N.Y.S.2d 267 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008) |
| Level | State Supreme Court |
| Injunction Status | N/A |