Title: The People v. Rashad McNair

State: new-york

Issuer: New York Appellate Court

Document:

- 1 -
=================================================================
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No. 144  
The People &c.,
            Respondent,
        v.
Rashad McNair,
            Appellant.
Paul Wiener, for appellant.
Marc Krupnick, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. 
Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of forgery in the
second degree in violation of Penal Law § 170.10 (1) relative to
his execution of an application to open a joint bank account.  On
appeal, defendant claims that the trial court erred in accepting
- 2 -
No. 144
- 2 -
his plea because his statements to the court negated the element
of intent to defraud.  Defendant neither moved to withdraw his
plea nor to vacate the judgment of conviction; rather, he sought
to challenge the sufficiency of the plea allocution for the first
time on direct appeal.  In doing so, he seeks to invoke the
"narrow exception" to the preservation requirement delineated in
People v Lopez (71 NY2d 662 [1988]).  That exception applies only
"[i]n that rare case . . . where the defendant's recitation of
the facts underlying the crime pleaded to casts significant doubt
upon the defendant's guilt or otherwise calls into question the
voluntariness of the plea," thereby imposing on the trial court
"a duty to inquire further to ensure that defendant's guilty plea
is knowing and voluntary" (id. at 666 [citations omitted]).  When
such a situation arises, if the trial court accepts the plea
without conducting the required further inquiry, a defendant is
entitled to challenge the allocution's sufficiency on direct
appeal, even if the defendant fails to make a post-judgment
motion (id.).  
We agree with defendant that, during the plea
allocution, he initially made remarks that "cast significant
doubt" on his guilt concerning the element of intent to defraud,
thereby triggering the trial court's duty to conduct a further
inquiry to ensure that defendant's plea was knowingly and
voluntarily made.  The plea minutes demonstrate that the trial
court properly conducted such an inquiry and found that defendant
- 3 -
No. 144
- 3 -
possessed the necessary criminal intent to defraud.  Having
failed to move thereafter to withdraw his plea, defendant waived
any further challenge to the allocution, and thus no issue is
preserved for our review (see Lopez, 71 NY2d at 668). 
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
Order affirmed, in a memorandum.  Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read,
Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.  Chief Judge Lippman took no
part.
Decided October 22, 2009