THE PEOPLE, res, v. RITA THOMPSON, def-app

13-132. THE PEOPLE, res, v. RITA THOMPSON, def-app — Ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of granting appellant leave to appeal as a poor person. Seymour W. James, Jr., Esq., of the Legal Aid Society, Criminal Appeals Bureau (199 Water Street, 3rd Floor, NY, NY 10038, tel# 212 577-3688) is assigned as counsel for the appellant to prosecute the appeal and to serve without compensation. So Order — Judgment of conviction (Diana M. Boyar, J.), rendered October 5, 2012, affirmed.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

13-132. THE PEOPLE, res, v. RITA THOMPSON, def-app — Ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of granting appellant leave to appeal as a poor person. Seymour W. James, Jr., Esq., of the Legal Aid Society, Criminal Appeals Bureau (199 Water Street, 3rd Floor, NY, NY 10038, tel# 212 577-3688) is assigned as counsel for the appellant to prosecute the appeal and to serve without compensation. So Order — Judgment of conviction (Diana M. Boyar, J.), rendered October 5, 2012, affirmed.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, we find the record sufficient to establish defendant’s understanding and waiver of her Boykin rights (see Boykin v. Alabama, 395 US 238 [1969]; People v. Tyrell, 22 NY3d 359, 366 [2013]), and of her entry of an otherwise knowing and voluntary guilty plea. In full satisfaction of an accusatory instrument charging defendant with, inter alia, two counts of assault in the third degree, defendant pleaded guilty to a single count of second degree harassment, a violation, in return for a negotiated sentence of time served. In defendant’s presence, defense counsel acknowledged that defendant agreed to waive “formal allocution,” and defendant personally confirmed, in response to the court’s questioning, that she was pleading guilty of her own free will and understood that she was giving up her right to trial. A plea of guilty “will not be invalidated solely because the Trial Judge failed to specifically enumerate all the rights to which the defendant was entitled and to elicit from him or her a list of detailed waivers before accepting the guilty plea’” (People v. Tyrell, 22 NY3d at 365, quoting People v. Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 16, [1983]). This is particularly so where, as here, “the record shows that defendant had ample opportunity to review her options in consultation with counsel” (People v. Perez, 116 AD3d 511, — [2014]).

THE PEOPLE, res, v. RITA THOMPSON, def-app

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal