People v. Babcock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Babcock

72 A.D.3d 984, 898 N.Y.S.2d 503

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

DecidedApril 20, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 72 A.D.3d 984 (People v. Babcock) 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. Babcock, 72 A.D.3d 984, 898 N.Y.S.2d 503 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered October 6, 2008,. convicting him of sodomy in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that his plea was not knowing or voluntary is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw his plea on these grounds (see People v Mitchell, 69 AD3d 883 [2010]). The narrow exception to the preservation rule (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]) is inapplicable here (see People v Smith, 43 AD3d 474 [2007]).

[985]*985The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Skelos, J.P., Dillon, Angiolillo, Eng and Sgroi, 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 County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered October 6, 2008,. convicting him of sodomy in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that his plea was not knowing or voluntary is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw his plea on these grounds (see People v Mitchell, 69 AD3d 883 [2010]). The narrow exception to the preservation rule (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]) is inapplicable here (see People v Smith, 43 AD3d 474 [2007]).

[985]*985The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Skelos, J.P., Dillon, Angiolillo, Eng and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.3d 984, 898 N.Y.S.2d 503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-babcock-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack