You are here: / / Failure to Inquire About Defendant’s Understanding of Intoxication Defense R...

Failure to Inquire About Defendant’s Understanding of Intoxication Defense Required Vacation of Guilty Plea

The Second Department determined defendant’s guilty plea should be vacated because the defendant could not recall the events due to his intoxication and the court made no inquiry about whether the defendant was aware of the significance of his intoxication (a possible intoxication defense):

The defendant pleaded guilty to assault in the second degree (see Penal Law § 120.05). At the plea allocution, the defendant indicated that he had a very limited recollection of the incident, but admitted his guilt based on photographs, police reports, and witness statements. The County Court acknowledged that the defendant could not recollect the incident because he had been drinking alcoholic beverages at the time of the assault, and that the defendant’s alleged intoxication at the time of the incident could negate the intent element of the crime of assault in the second degree (see Penal Law §§ 15.25, 120.05). While defense counsel stated that he had discussed “a possible intoxication defense” with the defendant and that the defendant understood it, the court made no inquiry of the defendant to ensure that he was aware of the significance of his claim of intoxication … . The court’s failure to conduct any such inquiry of the defendant requires vacatur of the defendant’s plea of guilty… . People v Jiminez, 2013 Slip Op 06386, 2nd Dept 10-2-13

 

You might also like
THE AFFIDAVIT FROM THE LOAN SERVICER PURPORTING TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT AVER THAT THE AFFIANT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO ACT FOR THE PLAINTIFF BANK (SECOND DEPT).
EXCLUSIVITY OF A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION REMEDY PRECLUDED SUIT AGAINST AN EMPLOYEE OF A PERSON EMPLOYED BY PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).
THE ADMINISTRATOR’S MOTION TO BE SUBSTITUED AS PLAINTIFF IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, INITIALLY DENIED, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED UPON THE MOTION TO RENEW; THE CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO RENEW, AND A MOTION TO BE SUBSTITUTED FOR A DECEASED PARTY ARE EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
REPAIR OF AN AIR CONDITIONER WAS NOT A PROTECTED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) OR 246(1), LADDER WAS NOT DEFECTIVE AND DEFENDANT DID NOT CONTROL PLAINTIFF’S WORK, THEREFORE NO LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 200(1) AS WELL.
Defendant’s Motion for a Judgment as a Matter of Law, Made Prior to the Close of Plaintiff’s Case, Was Premature and Should Not Have Been Granted Irrespective of the Improbability of Plaintiff’s Ultimate Success
Participation in Arbitration Precluded Action to Stay Arbitration
Prosecutor’s Creating the Impression Non-Testifying Witness Identified Defendant as Shooter Violated Defendant’s Right to Confront the Witnesses Against Him
A NEW TRIAL IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE JUDGE DID NOT RESPOND TO A NOTE FROM THE JURY (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Papers Sufficient to Require Suppression Hearing—No Need to Allege Expectation... ATTORNEY FOR THE SEVERELY DISABLED CHILD COULD CONTINUE TO MAKE FOSTER CARE...