You are here: / / COURT SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED FURTHER WHEN DEFENDANT INDICATED IN HIS PLEA...

COURT SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED FURTHER WHEN DEFENDANT INDICATED IN HIS PLEA COLLOQUY THAT HE ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE, CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea, determined that the court should have inquired further when defendant indicated in the plea colloquy that he acted in self-defense:

The defendant pleaded guilty to assault in the second degree and assault in the third degree. During the plea proceeding, however, he insisted that the complainant had pulled a gun on him, and that he had attacked the complainant in self-defense. The County Court did not ask the defendant any questions about a possible justification defense.

When a “defendant’s recitation of the facts underlying the crime pleaded to clearly casts significant doubt upon the defendant’s guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea,” the court has a duty to inquire further in order to make sure that the defendant understands the nature of the charge and that the plea has been intelligently entered… . This includes situations where the defendant’s allocution suggests the existence of a possible defense … . Where the court failed in its duty to inquire further, a defendant may raise a claim regarding the validity of the plea even without having moved to withdraw the plea … .

In this case, as the defendant contends and the People correctly concede, the County Court’s failure to inquire into the validity of the plea after the defendant’s allocution raised the possibility of a justification defense requires reversal of the judgment of conviction … . People v Williams, 2018 NY Slip Op 05711, Second Dept 8-8-18

CRIMINAL LAW (COURT SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED FURTHER WHEN DEFENDANT INDICATED IN HIS PLEA COLLOQUY THAT HE ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE, CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/PLEA COLLOQUY  (COURT SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED FURTHER WHEN DEFENDANT INDICATED IN HIS PLEA COLLOQUY THAT HE ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE, CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/GUILTY PLEA (COURT SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED FURTHER WHEN DEFENDANT INDICATED IN HIS PLEA COLLOQUY THAT HE ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE, CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
Failure to Mail Summons and Complaint to the Address the Property Owner Designated for the Receipt of All Relevant Correspondence Required Vacation of the Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale—Property Owner Was Never Properly Served Pursuant to CPLR 308(2)
Judge Properly Refused to Accept Defendant’s Plea to a Lesser Offense Because the Prosecutor Objected to the Plea Allocution as Insufficient
PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 196-d AGAINST A CORPORATE OFFICER AND A SHAREHOLDER INDIVIDUALLY FOR FAILING TO REMIT SERVICE CHARGES AND GRATUITIES TO THEIR WAITSTAFF EMPLOYEES; REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION TO SEEK CLASS CERTIFICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY DEMANDS WERE PALPABLY IMPROPER (SECOND DEPT).
DESPITE THE STRENGTH OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED A DECISION TO GO TO TRIAL WOULD HAVE BEEN RATIONALE BECAUSE OF HIS FAMILY OBLIGATIONS; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS; DEFENDANT ALLEGED HIS ATTORNEY MISADVISED HIM ON THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF A GUILTY PLEA (SECOND DEPT).
SECOND SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY ENTERTAINED; ABSENCE OF SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST POLICE.
TRIAL COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED DEFENDANT COULD BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT A PRIOR SIMILAR STABBING OF THE SAME VICTIM IF THE DEFENDANT CHOSE TO TESTIFY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
COURT-APPROVED CUSTODY AND PARENTAL ACCESS STIPULATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MODIFIED WITHOUT A HEARING; UPON REMITTAL AN ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD SHOULD BE APPOINTED (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Not Entitled to Attorney’s Fees after Plaintiff’s Motion for a Voluntary Discontinuance in a Foreclosure Action Was Granted Without Prejudice—Defendant Was Not a “Prevailing Party” within the Meaning of Real Property Law 282—Denial of Attorney’s Fees Was Not an Abuse of Discretion Under CPLR 3217 (c)

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

CONVICTION OF ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE... INCREASED SUSCEPTIBILITY TO INJURY JURY INSTRUCTION DID NOT AFFECT THE VERDICT,...