People v. Avila

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Avila

271 A.D.2d 541, 706 N.Y.S.2d 355, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3994

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

DecidedApril 10, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 271 A.D.2d 541 (People v. Avila) 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. Avila, 271 A.D.2d 541, 706 N.Y.S.2d 355, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3994 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), rendered April 30, 1998, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and resisting arrest, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that his plea was not knowingly and intelligently entered because no interpreter was present at the plea proceedings is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636). In any event, a review of the plea minutes reveals that the defendant fully understood his plea, and that it was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9). Insofar as we are able to review the defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we find it to be without merit (see, People v Hayes, 186 AD2d 268). O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), rendered April 30, 1998, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and resisting arrest, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that his plea was not knowingly and intelligently entered because no interpreter was present at the plea proceedings is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636). In any event, a review of the plea minutes reveals that the defendant fully understood his plea, and that it was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9). Insofar as we are able to review the defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we find it to be without merit (see, People v Hayes, 186 AD2d 268). O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 541, 706 N.Y.S.2d 355, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3994, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-avila-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack