People v. Bitter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bitter

286 A.D.2d 899, 730 N.Y.S.2d 925, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8981

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

DecidedSeptember 28, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 286 A.D.2d 899 (People v. Bitter) 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. Bitter, 286 A.D.2d 899, 730 N.Y.S.2d 925, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8981 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea of guilty or to vacate the judgment of conviction, and thus failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court erred in accepting his guilty plea without conducting a sufficient factual colloquy (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665). Because the recitation of the facts by defendant did not cast significant doubt upon his guilt, this case does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation doctrine (see, People v Lopez, supra, at 666). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Steuben County Court, Latham, J. — Burglary, 1st Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Pine, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea of guilty or to vacate the judgment of conviction, and thus failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court erred in accepting his guilty plea without conducting a sufficient factual colloquy (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665). Because the recitation of the facts by defendant did not cast significant doubt upon his guilt, this case does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation doctrine (see, People v Lopez, supra, at 666). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Steuben County Court, Latham, J. — Burglary, 1st Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Pine, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 899, 730 N.Y.S.2d 925, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8981, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bitter-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack