People v. Burnett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Burnett

115 A.D.2d 611, 496 N.Y.S.2d 962, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55035

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

DecidedDecember 16, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 115 A.D.2d 611 (People v. Burnett) 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. Burnett, 115 A.D.2d 611, 496 N.Y.S.2d 962, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55035 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeals by defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sherman, J.), each rendered August 22, 1984, convicting her of grand larceny in the second degree (two counts), upon her pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Judgments affirmed.

Defendant argues that the judgments must be reversed because the court, prior to accepting her guilty pleas, failed to inform her of her right to cross-examine the People’s witnesses. This argument has not been preserved for appellate review, since defendant did not move to withdraw her pleas in the court of original instance (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636). In any event, were we to review this contention in the interest of justice, we would find it to be without merit (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9). Further, the sentences imposed were not unduly harsh under the circumstances of this case. Brown, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

Appeals by defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sherman, J.), each rendered August 22, 1984, convicting her of grand larceny in the second degree (two counts), upon her pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Judgments affirmed.

Defendant argues that the judgments must be reversed because the court, prior to accepting her guilty pleas, failed to inform her of her right to cross-examine the People’s witnesses. This argument has not been preserved for appellate review, since defendant did not move to withdraw her pleas in the court of original instance (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636). In any event, were we to review this contention in the interest of justice, we would find it to be without merit (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9). Further, the sentences imposed were not unduly harsh under the circumstances of this case. Brown, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.2d 611, 496 N.Y.S.2d 962, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55035, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-burnett-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack