People v. Akridge

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Akridge

253 A.D.2d 727, 678 N.Y.S.2d 258

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 29, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 253 A.D.2d 727 (People v. Akridge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Akridge, 253 A.D.2d 727, 678 N.Y.S.2d 258 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey Atlas, J.), rendered May 4, 1995, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and attempted forgery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of IV2 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that his plea was coerced by the court’s discussion of potential sentences is not preserved as a matter of law since defendant did not move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (People v Ramirez, 196 AD2d 775, lv denied 82 NY2d 852), and we decline to review this claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that it was not coercive for the court to inform defendant that he faced consecutive sentences if he went to trial on two separate indictments (compare, People v Green, 240 AD2d 513, lv denied 90 NY2d 940, with People v Sung Min, 249 AD2d 130).

The record establishes that defendant received meaningful representation on both indictments (see, People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404), notwithstanding the fact that counsel was not formally appointed as to one of the indictments until after the plea was taken. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey Atlas, J.), rendered May 4, 1995, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and attempted forgery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of IV2 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that his plea was coerced by the court’s discussion of potential sentences is not preserved as a matter of law since defendant did not move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (People v Ramirez, 196 AD2d 775, lv denied 82 NY2d 852), and we decline to review this claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that it was not coercive for the court to inform defendant that he faced consecutive sentences if he went to trial on two separate indictments (compare, People v Green, 240 AD2d 513, lv denied 90 NY2d 940, with People v Sung Min, 249 AD2d 130).

The record establishes that defendant received meaningful representation on both indictments (see, People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404), notwithstanding the fact that counsel was not formally appointed as to one of the indictments until after the plea was taken. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 727, 678 N.Y.S.2d 258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-akridge-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack