You are here: / / THE BURGLARY PLEA COLLOQUY DID NOT INDICATE DEFENDANT INTENDED TO COMMIT...
,

THE BURGLARY PLEA COLLOQUY DID NOT INDICATE DEFENDANT INTENDED TO COMMIT A CRIME OTHER THAN TRESPASS IN THE PREMISES; THEREFORE THE COLLOQUY NEGATED AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE CRIME; PRESERVATION FOR APPEAL IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THIS GENRE OF ERROR (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department vacated defendant’s plea to burglary because the colloquy negated an essential element of the offense. The court noted that this type of error does not require preservation for appeal. The intent to commit burglary includes the intent to commit a crime in the premises other than trespass:

Although we agree with the People that defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review because he did not move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction on that ground … , this case nevertheless falls within the rare exception to the preservation requirement … . Where a defendant’s recitation of the facts “negates an essential element of the crime pleaded to, the court may not accept the plea without making further inquiry to ensure that [the] defendant understands the nature of the charge and that the plea is intelligently entered” … .

Here, defendant’s factual recitation negated at least one element of the crime. Specifically, defendant negated the “intent to commit a crime therein” element of burglary (Penal Law § 140.25) because his factual recitation contradicted any allegation that “he intended to commit a crime in the apartment other than his trespass” ( … see § 140.25). Criminal trespass in the second degree “cannot itself be used as the sole predicate crime in the intent to commit a crime therein’ element of burglary” … . The court thus had a duty to conduct an inquiry to ensure that defendant understood the nature of the crime … . Instead, the court stated, “I just want to make sure . . . [that] you still accept [the plea deal], because you have an absolute right to go to trial . . . I think you understand . . . [t]hat your defense of you going to the bathroom may be a difficult sell to a jury.” Because that minimal inquiry by the court did not clarify the nature of the crime in order to ensure that the plea was intelligently entered, the court erred in accepting the guilty plea. People v Hernandez, 2020 NY Slip Op 04049, Fourth Dept 7-17-20

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY WITH RESPECT TO DEFENDANT HOSPITAL IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; HOSPITAL DID NOT CONSENT TO JURISDICTION BY REGISTERING AS A FOREIGN CORPORATION; DOCTORS DID NOT CONSENT TO JURISDICTION BY BECOMING LICENSED IN NEW YORK (FOURTH DEPT).
An Action by a Judgment Creditor Pursuant to CPLR 5225 and 5227 Seeks both Legal and Equitable Relief—a Jury Trial Is Therefore Not Available
AN AMENDED STIPULATED ORDER CONCERNING THE WIFE’S INTEREST IN THE HUSBAND’S LIFE INSURANCE AND 401k IN THE CONTEXT OF AN ONGOING DIVORCE ACTION, ISSUED AFTER THE HUSBAND’S DEATH, WAS WITHOUT EFFECT EVEN THOUGH THE ORGINAL STIPULATED ORDER WAS ISSUED ONE DAY BEFORE THE HUSBAND’S DEATH; THE DIVORCE ACTION ABATED UPON THE HUSBAND’S DEATH (FOURTH DEPT).
Grand Jury Proceedings Not Rendered Defective by Prosecutor’s Introduction of New Evidence After First True Bill Voted
DEFENDANT’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO MAINTAIN ITS TRUCK LED TO AN ACCIDENT IN WHICH A VAN DRIVEN BY PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYEE STRUCK DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE; A LAWSUIT BY DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE AGAINST PLAINTIFF CULMINATED IN A $900,000 SETTLEMENT; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE RESULTING INCREASED INSURANCE PREMIUMS FORCED PLAINTIFF OUT OF BUSINESS; THE LOSS OF PLAINTIFF’S BUSINESS WAS NOT A FORESEEABLE CONSEQUENCE OF DEFENDANT’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO MAINTAIN ITS TRUCK (FOURTH DEPT).
Law Re: Liquidated Damages Explained
“Error In Judgment” Jury Instruction Properly Given/Defense Verdict Not Against the Weight of the Evidence
Motion to Vacate Pursuant to CPLR 5015 Should Have Been Granted On “Subject Matter Jurisdiction” and “Fraud Upon the Court” Grounds

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

FIREFIGHTER WAS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DELAY IN HOLDING HIS DISCIPLINARY... ALTHOUGH THE ‘LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE’ ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED...