People v. Buske87 A.D.3d 1354 N.Y. App. Div.2011Check Treatmentpink The user wants a legal opinion document converted to clean HTML. The source document is a legal reporter from New York (N.Y. Appellate Division). **Case Information Extraction:** - Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Candy Buske, Appellant. - Short Name: Peoрle v. Buske - Citation: 87 AD3d 1354 (this is the reporter page number where it starts, as indicated by the 1354 at the top) - Parallel Citation: 930 NYS2d 155 - Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department (inferred from names like Centra, Green, Martoche - though the header isn‘t explicitly on this page, the names are recognizable 4th Dept judges from that era). Actually, the document doesn‘t explicitly state the court name in the caption visible, but the judges (Smith, Centra, Carni, Green, Martoche) are 4th Department judges. - Docket: Not provided in the caption, but usually these have a number. Looking at the caption, only citations arе present. - Date: Not explicitly on the page, but the reporter is from 2011 (based on the citations inside like [2010]). Looking up 87 AD3d 1354, it‘s Sept 30, 2011. However, I should stick to what‘s in the text or generally known for these reporters. The prompt says “preserve formatting exactly“. **Structure:** - `` at the start of the opinion. - Extract case info into ``. - The first part of page 1354 is actually the еnd of a previous case. I must skip it as per the “Multi-Opinion Documents” rule: “convert only the MAIN opinion... Skip partial content from a previous case“. - The main opinion starts with “The People of the State of New York...“. **Opinion text analysis:** - Starts with Caption. - “Memorandum: Defendant appeals...” - Citation: `People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]` -> `` - Citation: `People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]` -> `` - Citation: `People v Kulyeshie, 71 AD3d 1478, 1478 [2010]` -> `` - Citation: `People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]` -> `` - Citation: `People v Simcoe, 74 AD3d 1858, 1859 [2010]` -> `` - Citation: `People v Jamison, 71 AD3d 1435, 1436 [2010]` -> `` - Citation: `People v Bailey, 49 AD3d 1258, 1259 [2008]` -> `` - Citation: `People v Williams, 291 AD2d 891, 893 [2002]` -> `` - Citation: `People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926, 927 [1974]` -> `` - Citation: `People v Strasser, 83 AD3d 1411 [2011]` -> `` - Citation: `People v Harris, 63 AD3d 1653 [2009]` -> `` - Citation: `People v Gumpton, 81 AD3d 1441, 1442 [2011]` -> `` - Citation: `People v Nichols, 77 AD3d 1339, 1340 [2010]` -> `` - Citation: `Peoрle v Sparcino, 78 AD3d 1508, 1509 [2010]` -> `` **Law Citations:** - `Penal Law §§ 110.00, 265.02 [1]` -> `` **Page break:** - Page 1354 ends with “...(People v Bailey, 49 AD3d 1258,“. - Page 1355 begins with “1259 [2008], ...“. - Rejoin words: “allocu-tion” -> “allocution“, “af-forded” -> “afforded“, “conten-tions” -> “contentions“, “de-fendant‘s” -> “defendant‘s“. **Multi-Opinion documents rule:** The document has a second and third brief entry at the end of pagе 1355. - “In the Matter of Chase J.E. ...” - “In the Matter of Lastanzea L. ...” The prompt says: “If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case...“. Case 1 (Buske) is a full opinion. Cаse 2 and 3 are also separate entries. Usually, in these reporter formats, each case is treated as a document. I will provide the HTML for the primary full opinion shown (Buske). Let‘s double check the “Multi-Opinion Documents” rule. It says “convert only the MAIN opinion... the one with a complete casе caption and full opinion body.” Buske has a complete caption and full opinion body. Chase J.E. has a caption and a short order. Lastanzea L. has a caption and a short memorandum reference. I will convert the Buske opinion. **Page Numbers:** Reporter page numbers are at the top corners: 1354, 1355. **HTML generation:** Case Information THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v CANDY BUSKE, Appellant. 87 AD3d 1354 | 930 NYS2d 155 Present—Smith, J.P., Centra, Carni, Green and Martoche, JJ. (Skipping the first paragraph as it belongs to the previous case). Caption: The People... Memorandum: ... Wait, the judges listed at the end of the first paragraph on page 1354 belong to the *previous* case. The Buske opinion starts with the square symbol. Wait, look at the end of the Buske opinion on 1355: “Present—Smith, J.P., Centra, Carni, Green and Martoche, JJ.” These judges are for Buske. Let‘s check the citations. `People v Bailey, 49 AD3d 1258, 1259 [2008]` spans page 1354 and 1355. Case Info attributes: shortName=“People v. Buske” court=“N.Y. App. Div.” (or 4th Dept) - The reporter is “AD3d” which is N.Y. App. Div. dаte: not on page, but 87 AD3d is 2011. Citation normalization: Penal Law §§ 110.00, 265.02 [1] -> Penal Law §§ 110.00, 265.02 [1] Actually, N.Y. Penal Law § 265.02 [1]. Wait, for the first part of the Buske opinion: “Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 265.02 [1]).” “allocu-tion” on 1354 -> “аllocution” “af-forded” on 1355 -> “afforded” “conten-tions” on 1355 -> “contentions” “de-fendant‘s” on 1355 -> “defendant‘s” Formatting check: “Present—Smith, J.P., Centra, Carni, Green and Martoche, JJ.” Note the “—” (em dash) in “Present—Smith“. OCR says “Present —Smith“. Looking at image, it‘s an em-dash. The short memorandum reference at the end of 1355 is “Matter of Lastanzea L.“. Thе “Chase J.E.” case is also there. I‘ll stick to Buske as it‘s the most complete opinion on these pages. Case Information block for Buske: shortName=“People v. Buske” court=“N.Y. App. Div.” citation=“87 AD3d 1354 | 930 NYS2d 155” Wait, the screenshot for page 1 starts with the end of a previous case. I must start with the Buske caption. Pagе 1354: (Skipping partial case) The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v CANDY BUSKE, Appellant. [930 NYS2d 155]— Memorandum: ... Page 1355: 1259 [2008], ... ... Present—Smith, J.P., Centra, Carni, Green and Martoche, JJ. Laws: Penal Law §§ 110.00, 265.02 [1] -> jurisdiction=“NY” Citations: People v Kulyeshie, 71 AD3d 1478, 1478 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 889 [2010] -> People v Kulyeshie, 71 AD3d 1478, 1478 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 889 [2010] Actually, in NY citations, “lv denied” is a procedural history. The format usually is: 71 AD3d 1478, 1478 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 889 [2010]. Let‘s refine. Onе detail: “The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Candy Buske, Appellant. [930 NYS2d 155]—” The em-dash at the end of citations in NY reporters usually separates the citation from the opinion body or represents redacted/blanked space. Judges for Buske: Smith, J.P., Centra, Carni, Green and Martoche, JJ. Wait, looking at the image, at the end of the Buske opinion, it lists the judges. The judges listed at the top of 1354 are for the previous case (which is People v Danielson or something similar mentioned in the text). Let‘s start the Buske opinion properly. ```html Case Information THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v CANDY BUSKE, Appellant. 87 AD3d 1354 | 930 NYS2d 155 Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York September 30, 2011 Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 265.02 [1]). We reject defendant‘s contention that her waiver of the right to appeal was invalid. “County Court‘s plea colloquy, together with the written waiver of the right to appeal, adequately apprised defendant that ‘the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty’ ” (People v Kulyeshie, 71 AD3d 1478, 1478 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 889 [2010], quoting People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). The further contention of defendant that her plea was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent because she did not recite the underlying facts of the crime to which she pleaded guilty is actually a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution and thus is encompassed by the valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Simcoe, 74 AD3d 1858, 1859 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 778 [2010]; People v Jamison, 71 AD3d 1435, 1436 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 888 [2010]). We further note that defendant failed to preserve her contention for our review because she did not move to vacate the judgment of conviction, nor did she raise that ground in her motion to withdraw the plea (see Jamison, 71 AD3d at 1436). In any event, defendant‘s contention is without merit. “[T]here is no requirement that defendant recite the underlying facts of the crime to which he [or she] is pleading guilty” (People v Bailey, 49 AD3d 1258, 1259 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 932 [2008]; see People v Williams, 291 AD2d 891, 893 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 656 [2002]). Finally, defendant contends that the court failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry before denying her motion to withdraw her guilty plea and abused its discretion in denying her motion. We reject those contentions. First, “[t]he defendant should be afforded [a] reasonable opportunity to present his [or her] contentions [in support of the motion] and the court should be enabled to make an informed determination” based thereon (People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926, 927 [1974]; see People v Strasser, 83 AD3d 1411 [2011]; People v Harris, 63 AD3d 1653 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 744 [2009]), and the record establishes that such was the case here. Second, with respect to the merits of the motion, defendant‘s claim of innocence in support thereof was beliеd by her statements during the plea colloquy (see People v Gumpton, 81 AD3d 1441, 1442 [2011]; People v Nichols, 77 AD3d 1339, 1340 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 954 [2010]). “The court was presented with a credibility determination when defendant moved to withdraw [her] plea and advanced [her] belated claim[ ] of innocence . . . , and it did not abuse its discretion in discrediting th[at] claim[ ]” (People v Sparcino, 78 AD3d 1508, 1509 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 746 [2011]). Present—Smith, J.P., Centra, Carni, Green and Martoche, JJ. Wait, look at the end of Sparcino cite: “Present—Smith, J.P., Centra, Carni, Green and Martoche, JJ.” The next line is another case. Double checking text: In the Sparcino quote: “and it did not abuse its discretion in discrediting th[at] claim[ ]” (People v Sparcino...). Wait, OCR says “claim! ]“. Looking at screenshot 2, it‘s “claim[ ]“. The judges listed are for the Buske case. I will include the next two small entries as well if they are “MAIN opinions“. Matter of Chase J.E. - is this a main opinion? It has a caption: “In the Matter of Chase J.E., an Infant. Chautauqua County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Charles E.E., III, Appellant, et al. Respondent. [932 NYS2d 20]—” Order: “It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Present—Smith, J.P., Centra, Carni, Green and Martoche, JJ.” This is a full (albeit very short) order. Matter of Lastanzea L. Caption: ... Memorandum: “Same memorandum as in Matter of Lastanzea L. (87 AD3d 1356)” This is just a pointer. I think converting the Buske opinion is the primary goal. Let‘s check the date for Buske (87 AD3d 1354). It is indeed Sept 30, 2011. Court: Appellate Division, Fourth Department. Wait, I should check the formatting for the em-dash in Present. In screenshot 2, there‘s no space: “Present—Smith“. OCR has a space. I‘ll follow the image. Citations for NY cases: The year is usually in brackets `[2010]`. Laws: Penal Law §§ 110.00, 265.02 [1] N.Y. Penal Law § 110.00 is “Attempt to сommit a crime“. N.Y. Penal Law § 265.02 is “Criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree“. The citation “265.02 [1]” refers to subsection 1. One more check on Buske: OCR says “attempted criminal possession of a weapon degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, [1]). in the third Law 265.02“. Looking at the screenshot: “attempted criminal possessiоn of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 265.02 [1]).” The OCR is very messy there. Re-reading carefully: “her plea of guilty of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 265.02 [1]).” The pagination: `People v Bailey, 49 AD3d 1258,` `1259 [2008]` The page number 1355 is at the top right. Short name logic: “THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v CANDY BUSKE, Appellant.” -> shortName=“People v. Buske” One detail: “[930 NYS2d 155]—” This em-dash follows the parallel citation. Judges in details: “Present—Smith, J.P., Centra, Carni, Green and Martoche, JJ.” I‘ll put the parallel citation in the citation tag. Wait, the prompt says “Multi-Opinion Documents... convert only the MAIN opinion“. Usually, Buske is the main one here. Thе others are memorandum orders that refer to other cases. Let‘s verify citations. People v Kulyeshie, 71 AD3d 1478 [2010] People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248 [2006] People v Simcoe, 74 AD3d 1858 [2010] People v Jamison, 71 AD3d 1435 [2010] People v Bailey, 49 AD3d 1258 [2008] People v Williams, 291 AD2d 891 [2002] People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926 [1974] People v Strasser, 83 AD3d 1411 [2011] People v Harris, 63 AD3d 1653 [2009] People v Gumpton, 81 AD3d 1441 [2011] People v Nichols, 77 AD3d 1339 [2010] People v Sparcino, 78 AD3d 1508 [2010] Law normalization: jurisdiction=“NY” cite=“N.Y. Penal Law § 110.00” jurisdiction=“NY” cite=“N.Y. Penal Law § 265.02(1)” One final check on text: “the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution” OCR for page 1 says “allocu-tion“. Rejoined: “allocution“. “afforded [a] reasonable opportunity” OCR for page 2 says “af-forded“. Rejoined: “afforded“. “present his [or her] contentions [in support of the motion]” OCR for page 2 says “conten-tions“. Rejoined: “contentions“. “belied by her statements” OCR for page 2 says “de-fendant‘s“. Wait, no. Actually, the hyphen in “de-fendant‘s” in the OCR for page 2 is in “de-fendant‘s claim of innocence“. Image shows “de-fendant‘s” at end of line. Rejoined: “defendant‘s“. Judges formatting: “Smith, J.P., Centra, Carni, Green and Martoche, JJ.” The starting citation “[930 NYS2d 155]—” is at the end of the caption. Ready to generate HTML. Wait, I should check the first case on 1354 again. The text starts with: “60 NY2d 374, 382 [1983]). Furthermore...” This is the end of a previous case. I skip it. The Buske case starts with the square marker and the names. ```html Case Information THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v CANDY BUSKE, Appellant. 87 AD3d 1354 | 930 NYS2d 155 Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York September 30, 2011 Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 265.02 [1]). We reject defendant‘s contention that her waiver of the right to appeal was invalid. “County Court‘s plea colloquy, together with the written waiver of the right to appeal, adequately apprised defendant that ‘the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty’ ” (People v Kulyeshie, 71 AD3d 1478, 1478 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 889 [2010], quoting People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). The further contention of defendant that her plea was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent because she did not recite the underlying facts of the crime to which she pleaded guilty is actually a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution and thus is encompassed by the valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Simcoe, 74 AD3d 1858, 1859 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 778 [2010]; People v Jamison, 71 AD3d 1435, 1436 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 888 [2010]). We further note that defendant failed to preserve her contention for our review because she did not move to vacate the judgment of conviction, nor did she raise that ground in her motion to withdraw the plea (see Jamison, 71 AD3d at 1436). In any event, dеfendant‘s contention is without merit. “[T]here is no requirement that defendant recite the underlying facts of the crime to which he [or she] is pleading guilty” (People v Bailey, 49 AD3d 1258, 1259 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 932 [2008]; see People v Williams, 291 AD2d 891, 893 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 656 [2002]). Finally, defendant contends that the court failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry before denying her motion to withdraw her guilty plea and abused its discretion in denying her motion. We rejеct those contentions. First, “[t]he defendant should be afforded [a] reasonable opportunity to present his [or her] contentions [in support of the motion] and the court should be enabled to make an informed determination” based thereon (People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926, 927 [1974]; see People v Strasser, 83 AD3d 1411 [2011]; People v Harris, 63 AD3d 1653 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 744 [2009]), and the record establishes that such was the case hеre. Second, with respect to the merits of the motion, defendant‘s claim of innocence in support thereof was belied by her statements during the plea colloquy (see People v Gumpton, 81 AD3d 1441, 1442 [2011]; People v Nichols, 77 AD3d 1339, 1340 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 954 [2010]). “The court was presented with a credibility determination when defendant moved to withdraw [her] plea and advanced [her] belated claim[ ] of innocence . . . , and it did not abuse its discretion in discrediting th[at] claim[ ]” (People v Sparcino, 78 AD3d 1508, 1509 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 746 [2011]). Present—Smith, J.P., Centra, Carni, Green and Martoche, JJ. ``` Wait, I should check the citation `People v Bleakley` at the start of page 1354. It is part of the previous case. I must omit it. Also, the prompt mentions `lv denied` should be handled correctly. I sеe “lv denied 14 NY3d 889 [2010]” which I will mark as a case but `lv denied` is outside. Actually, for `People v Kulyeshie, 71 AD3d 1478, 1478 [2010]`, the pinpoint is `1478`. The `lv denied` part refers to the same case. `lv denied 14 NY3d 889 [2010]` Another one: `People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]`. Cite=“6 NY3d 248“, pinpoint=“256“. Re-checking `Simcoe`: `People v Simcoe, 74 AD3d 1858, 1859 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 778 [2010]`. One more detail: the first line of the Buske case has a square symbol. I don‘t include that in the `details` but it marks the start. The prompt asks to skip partial content from a previous case. The first part of 1354 is: “60 NY2d 374... JJ.” Then the Buske case starts. I will start Buske right after the `details`. One check on the judges. “Present—Smith, J.P., Centra, Carni, Green and Martoche, JJ.” These judges are fоr Buske. The judges at the top of 1354 are for the previous case. Final check on court: The reporter `AD3d` is the “Appellate Division Reports“. Since these judges are for the 4th Dept, I‘ll use that. Actually, I‘ll just use “N.Y. App. Div.” in the attributes. Should I include the parallel citation [930 NYS2d 155]? Yes, in the `citation` field. Double check: “allocution” (rejoined). “afforded” (rejoined). “contentions” (rejoined). “defendant‘s” (rejoined). One more thing: `People v Danielson` at the top of 1354 is NOT the current case. It is being cited by the previous case. I skip everything until “The People...“. The caption in the reporter: “The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Candy Buske, Appellant. [930 NYS2d 155]—” I‘ll proceed.
