Source: http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/appellate-term-first-department/2005/2005-51407.html
Timestamp: 2013-06-18 21:44:50
Document Index: 691211263

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 240', '§ 215', '§ 120', '§ 260', '§ 240', '§ 240']

People v Hopkins (Shirlene) :: September, 2005 :: New York Appellate Term, First Department Decisions :: New York Case Law :: US Case Law :: US Law :: Justia
Justia > US Law > US Case Law > New York Case Law > New York Appellate Term, First Department Decisions > September, 2005 > People v Hopkins (Shirlene)	NEW - Receive Justia's FREE Daily Newsletters of Opinion Summaries for the US Supreme Court, all US Federal Appellate Courts & the 50 US State Supreme Courts and Weekly Practice Area Opinion Summaries Newsletters. Subscribe Now
People v Hopkins (Shirlene)[*1]
People v Hopkins (Shirlene)
2005 NY Slip Op 51407(U) [9 Misc 3d 126(A)]
Decided on September 8, 2005
570428/02
againstSHIRLENE HOPKINS, Defendant-Appellant.
In consolidated cases, defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction and amended judgment of conviction of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County, each rendered March 7, 2002 (Joseph J. Dawson, J.) convicting her, upon pleas of guilty, of four counts of aggravated harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.30[1]), two counts of criminal contempt in the second degree (Penal Law § 215.30[2]), stalking in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 120.45[2]), endangering the welfare of a child (Penal Law § 260.10), harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.26[3]), and disorderly conduct (Penal Law § 240.20), and imposing sentence.
Judgment of conviction and amended judgment of conviction rendered March 7, 2002 (Joseph J. Dawson, J.) affirmed.
Defendant's challenges to the plea allocutions underlying her stalking and criminal contempt convictions have not been preserved for appellate review (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662 [1988]; People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636 [1983]). Were we to reach these claims in the interest of justice, we would find them to be without merit. There is no "uniform mandatory [*2]catechism of pleading defendants," only that it be demonstrable that the plea was voluntary, knowing and intelligent (People v Nixon, 21 NY2d 338, 353
[1967], cert denied sub nom. Robinson v New York, 393 US 1067 [1969]), which is shown by a review of the record herein. "The fact that defendant did not recite all the elements of the crime did not render the plea invalid" (People v Reyes, 202 AD2d 190, 191 [1994], lv denied 83 NY2d 1906 [1994], quoting People v Galvan, 197 AD2d 394, 395 [1993]). To the extent that defendant contends that her mental state was impaired at the time of the plea proceedings, this claim is similarly unpreserved and is unsupported by any record evidence.
We have considered and rejected defendant's jurisdictional arguments.
Decision Date: September 08, 2005	Justiaon