People v. Barber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Barber

149 A.D.2d 984, 543 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6085

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

DecidedApril 14, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 149 A.D.2d 984 (People v. Barber) 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. Barber, 149 A.D.2d 984, 543 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6085 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously af[985]*985firmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s argument that the indictment was jurisdictionally defective has no merit. The indictment here contained the required statutory elements and clearly advised defendant of the crime with which he was charged. We disagree with defendant’s argument that the plea colloquy was insufficient. Defendant clearly understood the crime charged and acknowledged facts sufficient to establish his commission of the crime (see, People v Spain, 110 AD2d 724). Defendant’s argument that he was deprived of his constitutional rights because of the delay in perfecting his appeal is without merit (see, People v Gaines, 143 AD2d 520). (Appeal from judgment of Livingston County Court, Dugan, J. — attempted rape, first degree.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously af[985]*985firmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s argument that the indictment was jurisdictionally defective has no merit. The indictment here contained the required statutory elements and clearly advised defendant of the crime with which he was charged. We disagree with defendant’s argument that the plea colloquy was insufficient. Defendant clearly understood the crime charged and acknowledged facts sufficient to establish his commission of the crime (see, People v Spain, 110 AD2d 724). Defendant’s argument that he was deprived of his constitutional rights because of the delay in perfecting his appeal is without merit (see, People v Gaines, 143 AD2d 520). (Appeal from judgment of Livingston County Court, Dugan, J. — attempted rape, first degree.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 A.D.2d 984, 543 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6085, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-barber-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack