People v. Almarez

19 A.D.3d 1005, 796 N.Y.S.2d 780, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6319
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 10, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 19 A.D.3d 1005 (People v. Almarez) 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. Almarez, 19 A.D.3d 1005, 796 N.Y.S.2d 780, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6319 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Seneca County Court (Dennis F. Bender, J.), rendered April 6, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree.

[1006]*1006It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 205.25 [2]). By pleading guilty, defendant forfeited his right to raise on appeal his present contentions regarding the allegations in the indictment (see generally People v Hansen, 95 NY2d 227, 230-232 [2000]; People v Thomas, 53 NY2d 338, 342 n 2 [1981]). In addition, those contentions are not preserved for our review because defendant did not move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see generally People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726 [1995], rearg denied 86 NY2d 839 [1995]; People v Baxter, 302 AD2d 950, 951 [2003], lv denied 99 NY2d 652 [2003]), and we decline to exercise our power to review those contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Defendant’s further contention that Penal Law § 205.25 (2) is unconstitutional is also unpreserved for our review (see People v McKeehan, 2 AD3d 1421, 1422, lv denied 3 NY3d 644 [2004]), and the record does not establish that the requisite notice was given to the Attorney General (see Executive Law § 71 [3]; McKeehan, 2 AD3d at 1422). Present—Pigott, Jr., PJ., Gorski, Smith, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

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

Related

COLLINS, AARON, PEOPLE v
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011
People v. Collins
85 A.D.3d 1678 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Bracewell
26 A.D.3d 812 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
19 A.D.3d 1005, 796 N.Y.S.2d 780, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-almarez-nyappdiv-2005.