People v. Clark
Criminal Lawcriminal lawguilty pleaassault in the second degreeappealaffirmedjudgment of conviction
Facts
The opinion states only that defendant was convicted upon a plea of guilty of assault in the second degree. The conviction was entered in Steuben County Court on May 23, 2024. Defendant then appealed from that judgment. The appellate opinion provides no additional facts about the underlying assault or the plea proceedings.
Issue
Whether the judgment convicting defendant, upon his guilty plea, of assault in the second degree should be disturbed on appeal.
Rule
No substantive black-letter rule or test is stated in the opinion. The court simply affirmed the appealed-from judgment of conviction.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
- The court's holding and reasoning
- Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
- 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Free sample · practice this case
Test yourself
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Rochester, New York, Devin Moore pleaded guilty to third-degree robbery in Monroe County Court. On appeal, the intermediate appellate court issued a short order stating only that the judgment was unanimously affirmed.
What, if anything, does that appellate decision establish as precedent?
Explanation. The majority opinion in the source case contains only a decretal affirmance of a judgment convicting the defendant upon a guilty plea. It states no legal standard, no issue-specific analysis, and no substantive doctrine beyond affirming that judgment. Thus, a similarly bare affirmance establishes only that the appealed judgment was left undisturbed, not a broader rule. (Derived from People v. Clark (n.d.).)