People v. Balo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Balo

208 A.D.2d 639, 618 N.Y.S.2d 245, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9524

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

DecidedOctober 11, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 208 A.D.2d 639 (People v. Balo) 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. Balo, 208 A.D.2d 639, 618 N.Y.S.2d 245, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9524 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from three judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.), all rendered March 5, 1993, convicting him of murder in the second degree under Indictment No. 325/92, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under Indictment No. 9706/91, and criminal possession [640]*640of a weapon under Indictment No. 11522/91, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the absence of a complete factual recitation of the underlying facts does not require reversal of the convictions where, as here, the record plainly establishes that the defendant knowingly and intelligently pleaded guilty, following discussion with counsel (see, People v Dexter, 135 AD2d 648; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from three judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.), all rendered March 5, 1993, convicting him of murder in the second degree under Indictment No. 325/92, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under Indictment No. 9706/91, and criminal possession [640]*640of a weapon under Indictment No. 11522/91, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the absence of a complete factual recitation of the underlying facts does not require reversal of the convictions where, as here, the record plainly establishes that the defendant knowingly and intelligently pleaded guilty, following discussion with counsel (see, People v Dexter, 135 AD2d 648; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 639, 618 N.Y.S.2d 245, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-balo-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack