People v. Bell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bell

110 A.D.2d 902, 488 N.Y.S.2d 451, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48805

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

DecidedApril 29, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 110 A.D.2d 902 (People v. Bell) 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. Bell, 110 A.D.2d 902, 488 N.Y.S.2d 451, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48805 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

The plea minutes clearly reveal that defendant understood that if he failed to appear in court on the scheduled sentencing date, the court would not be bound by the promise made as to sentence as part of the plea agreement, that he would receive enhanced sentences, and that he would not be permitted to withdraw his guilty pleas as a result. Criminal Term, therefore, cannot be said to have abused its discretion in denying defendant’s application to withdraw his guilty pleas and in imposing sentences which appropriately reflected his criminal record, when defendant turned up for sentencing three years late (see, People v Murello, 39 NY2d 879; People v Davis, 106 AD2d 657). We also note that by pleading guilty prior to the determination of his omnibus motion, defendant waived appellate review of all suppression issues raised therein (People v Querica, 106 AD2d 589; People v Corti, 88 AD2d 345) and of his claim concerning the sufficiency of the evidence before the Grand Juries (People v Zangrillo, 105 AD2d 822; People v Ali, 79 AD2d 974). We have considered defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Titone, J. P., Lazer, Thompson and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

The plea minutes clearly reveal that defendant understood that if he failed to appear in court on the scheduled sentencing date, the court would not be bound by the promise made as to sentence as part of the plea agreement, that he would receive enhanced sentences, and that he would not be permitted to withdraw his guilty pleas as a result. Criminal Term, therefore, cannot be said to have abused its discretion in denying defendant’s application to withdraw his guilty pleas and in imposing sentences which appropriately reflected his criminal record, when defendant turned up for sentencing three years late (see, People v Murello, 39 NY2d 879; People v Davis, 106 AD2d 657). We also note that by pleading guilty prior to the determination of his omnibus motion, defendant waived appellate review of all suppression issues raised therein (People v Querica, 106 AD2d 589; People v Corti, 88 AD2d 345) and of his claim concerning the sufficiency of the evidence before the Grand Juries (People v Zangrillo, 105 AD2d 822; People v Ali, 79 AD2d 974). We have considered defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Titone, J. P., Lazer, Thompson and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A.D.2d 902, 488 N.Y.S.2d 451, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48805, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bell-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack