People v. Bell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bell

284 A.D.2d 118, 725 N.Y.S.2d 200, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5718

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

DecidedJune 5, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 118 (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, 284 A.D.2d 118, 725 N.Y.S.2d 200, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5718 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Solomon, J.), rendered September 10, 1999, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

After a thorough inquiry, the court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea (see, People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520). The record reveals that the plea was made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Defendant’s contentions in support of his motion to withdraw the plea were clearly refuted by the plea allocution record.

Since defendant failed to challenge the propriety of his second felony offender adjudication on the ground now asserted, his claim is unpreserved for appellate review (People v Smith, 73 NY2d 961). “A sufficiently specific motion might [have] provid [ed] the opportunity for cure” (People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 20) by alerting the People to the necessity of obtaining the accusatory instrument upon which defendant was convicted in Connecticut, for the purpose of equivalency analysis pursuant to People v Muniz (74 NY2d 464), and we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Solomon, J.), rendered September 10, 1999, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

After a thorough inquiry, the court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea (see, People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520). The record reveals that the plea was made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Defendant’s contentions in support of his motion to withdraw the plea were clearly refuted by the plea allocution record.

Since defendant failed to challenge the propriety of his second felony offender adjudication on the ground now asserted, his claim is unpreserved for appellate review (People v Smith, 73 NY2d 961). “A sufficiently specific motion might [have] provid [ed] the opportunity for cure” (People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 20) by alerting the People to the necessity of obtaining the accusatory instrument upon which defendant was convicted in Connecticut, for the purpose of equivalency analysis pursuant to People v Muniz (74 NY2d 464), and we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 118, 725 N.Y.S.2d 200, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bell-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack