People v. Fernandez

N.Y.

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citations: 67 N.Y.2d 686, 499 N.Y.S.2d 919, 490 N.E.2d 838, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 16626

Decision Date: 2/6/1986

Jurisdiction: NY

Bluebook Citation: People v. Fernandez, 67 N.Y.2d 686, 499 N.Y.S.2d 919, 490 N.E.2d 838, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 16626 (1986)

More Cases: N.Y. decisions from 1986

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Landmark AuthorityTop 1% most-cited · cited by 190 decisions

190

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1980s1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

N.Y. App. Div.181

N.Y.5

N.Y. App. Term.3

NY1

Most recently cited by10

2026People v. Rayo-Lugo N.Y. App. Div.
2026People v. Johnson N.Y. App. Div.
2025People v. Bleyden N.Y. App. Div.
2025People v. Hobes N.Y. App. Div.
2025People v. Robinson N.Y. App. Div.
2025People v. Fox N.Y. App. Div.
2024People v. Granger N.Y. App. Div.
2024People v. Stefanovich N.Y. App. Div.
2023People v. Johnson N.Y. App. Div.
2023People v. Persaud N.Y. App. Div.

Cites 3 cases

People v. Prescott
People v. Mack
People v. Charleston

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

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

Attorneys

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
James J. Cruise, Jr., for appellant.
John J. Santucci, District Attorney (Ray F. Cerreta of counsel), for respondent.

majority

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

A guilty plea generally results in a forfeiture of the right to appellate review of any nonjurisdictional defects in the proceedings (People v Prescott, 66 NY2d 216, 220). CPL 710.70 (2) carves out a limited exception providing that an order finally denying a motion to suppress evidence may be reviewed on appeal from a final judgment of conviction, even one entered upon a guilty plea. That exception is unavailable to this defendant, who pleaded guilty before obtaining such an order. That he may have believed his plea would not result in such forfeiture is irrelevant, because, even if communicated to the court, a subjective belief cannot permit evasion of what otherwise would be the consequences of the plea (People v Mack, 53 NY2d 803, 806). Moreover, by pleading guilty before the hearing on his suppression motion, defendant precluded the making of a record and, in consequence, foreclosed the possibility of appellate review of his challenge to the admissibility of the People’s evidence (see, People v Charleston, 54 NY2d 622, 623).

The conclusion of the lower courts that no reason existed for Criminal Term to have suspected defendant of being an incapacitated person and therefore to have directed an examination pursuant to CPL article 730 finds support in the record, and cannot be reviewed further. Defendant’s remaining contention has not been preserved for our review.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.