People v. Baston

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Baston

26 A.D.3d 340, 807 N.Y.S.2d 882

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.3d 340 (People v. Baston) 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. Baston, 26 A.D.3d 340, 807 N.Y.S.2d 882 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mangano, Jr., J.), rendered December 10, 2001, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenges to the validity of his plea of guilty are belied by the record, which shows that the court conducted a careful and thorough allocution and that the defendant entered a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary plea. Accordingly, the court providently exercised its discretion (see CPL 220.60 [3]) in denying the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]; People v Abney, 10 AD3d 617 [2004]; People v Kessler, 5 AD3d 504, 505 [2004]; see also People v LaFurno, 8 AD3d 498, 499 [2004]). Schmidt, J.P., Mastro, Spolzino and Lunn, 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, Kings County (Mangano, Jr., J.), rendered December 10, 2001, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenges to the validity of his plea of guilty are belied by the record, which shows that the court conducted a careful and thorough allocution and that the defendant entered a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary plea. Accordingly, the court providently exercised its discretion (see CPL 220.60 [3]) in denying the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]; People v Abney, 10 AD3d 617 [2004]; People v Kessler, 5 AD3d 504, 505 [2004]; see also People v LaFurno, 8 AD3d 498, 499 [2004]). Schmidt, J.P., Mastro, Spolzino and Lunn, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.3d 340, 807 N.Y.S.2d 882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-baston-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack