People v. Awosika

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Awosika

246 A.D.2d 602, 667 N.Y.S.2d 284, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 368

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

DecidedJanuary 20, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 246 A.D.2d 602 (People v. Awosika) 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. Awosika, 246 A.D.2d 602, 667 N.Y.S.2d 284, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 368 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berke, J.), rendered June 8, 1994, convicting her of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence, and (2), by permission, from an order of the same court, dated May 2, 1997, which denied, without a hearing, her motion pursuant to CPL 440.20 to set aside the sentence.

Ordered that the judgment and the order are affirmed.

We reject the defendant’s contention that she is entitled to specific performance of the alleged off-the-record agreement between defense counsel and the prosecutor (see, People v Hood, 62 NY2d 863; People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520; People v Rodriguez, 123 AD2d 404). Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman, Krausman and Lerner, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berke, J.), rendered June 8, 1994, convicting her of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence, and (2), by permission, from an order of the same court, dated May 2, 1997, which denied, without a hearing, her motion pursuant to CPL 440.20 to set aside the sentence.

Ordered that the judgment and the order are affirmed.

We reject the defendant’s contention that she is entitled to specific performance of the alleged off-the-record agreement between defense counsel and the prosecutor (see, People v Hood, 62 NY2d 863; People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520; People v Rodriguez, 123 AD2d 404). Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman, Krausman and Lerner, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D.2d 602, 667 N.Y.S.2d 284, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-awosika-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack