People v. Constant’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The defendant’s contention that the trial court lacked authority to vacate his plea of guilty and his contention in his pro se supplemental brief that the trial court forced him to go to trial against his will by vacating his plea of guilty are unpre-served for appellate review, as he did not object on those grounds before the trial court (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Rosen, 96 N.Y.2d 329, 335 , 728 N.Y.S.2d 407 , 752 N.E.2d 844 , cert. denied 534 U.S. 899 , 122 S.Ct. 224 , 151 L.Ed.2d 160 ; People v. Olmstead, 77 A.D.3d 1179, 1181 , 910 N.Y.S.2d 232 ). In any event, the contentions are without merit. The record reveals that the defendant rejected the option of an enhanced sentence. Thus, under the circumstances, the trial court properly vacated his plea of guilty (see People v. Rubendall, 4 A.D.3d 13, 17 , 772 N.Y.S.2d 346 ; People v. Davis, 54 A.D.2d 410, 413 , 389 N.Y.S.2d 94 , revd. on other grounds 44 N.Y.2d 269 , 405 N.Y.S.2d 428 , 376 N.E.2d 901 ). The defendant’s contention in his pro se supplemental brief that he was entitled to specific performance of a plea agreement is not properly before this Court, since it is based upon matters dehors the record (see People v. Walters, 299 A.D.2d 377, 378 , 749 N.Y.S.2d 156 ). The defendant’s contentions raised in his pro se supplemental brief that the trial court considered improper factors in refusing to impose the negotiated sentence pursuant to the plea deal and in vacating his plea are unpreserved for appellate review (see”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 119 F. Supp. 3d 87 - Constant v. Martuscello