People v Antoine
2009 NY Slip Op 01126 [59 AD3d 560]
February 10, 2009
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, April 1, 2009


The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
TedAntoine, Appellant.

[*1]Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Winston McIntosh of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Solomon Neubortof counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman,J.), rendered November 7, 2003, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon his plea ofguilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not voluntary because it was coerced isunpreserved for appellate review since he did not move to withdraw his plea on that basis(see People v Clarke, 93 NY2d 904, 906 [1999]; People v Perez, 51 AD3d 1043 [2008]; People v Scoca, 38 AD3d 801[2007]; People v Lopez, 34 AD3d599 [2006]), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.Further, the defendant's claim that his plea and waiver were not intelligently, knowingly, andvoluntarily made because the court failed to specifically enumerate all of the rights to which hewas entitled is without merit (see People v Nixon, 21 NY2d 338, 353 [1967]; People v Luster, 45 AD3d 866[2007]; People v Dixon, 41 AD3d861 [2007]). With respect to the factual sufficiency of the defendant's plea allocution, theSupreme Court made an inquiry sufficient to conclude that the defendant meant to plead guilty todepraved indifference murder (see Penal Law § 125.25 [2]). Because the courtmade a further inquiry to ensure that the plea was knowing and voluntary, and the defendant didnot complain about the court's remedial action, the defendant "has waived any further challengeto the allocution, and thus no issue is preserved for our review" (People v Lopez, 71NY2d 662, 668 [1988]; see People vHolman, 33 AD3d 815 [2006]). Lastly, the defendant's contention [*2]that the circumstances surrounding his shooting of the victim in thiscase did not constitute depraved indifference murder was forfeited by his plea of guilty (see People v Shearer, 29 AD3d608 [2006]). Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Carni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.