People v. Bux

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bux

144 A.D.2d 683, 535 N.Y.S.2d 45, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12414

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

DecidedNovember 28, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 144 A.D.2d 683 (People v. Bux) 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. Bux, 144 A.D.2d 683, 535 N.Y.S.2d 45, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12414 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Finnegan, J.), rendered April 3, 1986, convicting him of attempted rape in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel is predicated on matters dehors the record, which are not reviewable on direct appeal (see, People [684]*684v Robinson, 122 AD2d 173, lv denied 68 NY2d 1003; People v Wolcott, 111 AD2d 943). The appropriate remedy is a postconviction proceeding pursuant to CPL 440.10 (see, People v Brown, 45 NY2d 852; People v Wolcott, supra). The defendant’s contention that his plea allocution was legally insufficient has not been preserved for appellate review as he neither moved to withdraw his plea of guilty under CPL 220.60 (3) nor moved to vacate the judgment of conviction under CPL 440.10 (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662; People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636). In any event, a review of the defendant’s factual recitation of the crime charged and his responsive answers to questions asked during the plea allocution belie his claim that he did not comprehend English. The record affirmatively demonstrates that the defendant’s plea of guilty was neither improvident nor baseless, and that it was knowingly and voluntarily entered with the assistance of counsel (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9). Weinstein, J. P., Bracken, Kunzeman and Rubin, 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 (Finnegan, J.), rendered April 3, 1986, convicting him of attempted rape in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel is predicated on matters dehors the record, which are not reviewable on direct appeal (see, People [684]*684v Robinson, 122 AD2d 173, lv denied 68 NY2d 1003; People v Wolcott, 111 AD2d 943). The appropriate remedy is a postconviction proceeding pursuant to CPL 440.10 (see, People v Brown, 45 NY2d 852; People v Wolcott, supra). The defendant’s contention that his plea allocution was legally insufficient has not been preserved for appellate review as he neither moved to withdraw his plea of guilty under CPL 220.60 (3) nor moved to vacate the judgment of conviction under CPL 440.10 (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662; People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636). In any event, a review of the defendant’s factual recitation of the crime charged and his responsive answers to questions asked during the plea allocution belie his claim that he did not comprehend English. The record affirmatively demonstrates that the defendant’s plea of guilty was neither improvident nor baseless, and that it was knowingly and voluntarily entered with the assistance of counsel (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9). Weinstein, J. P., Bracken, Kunzeman and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 A.D.2d 683, 535 N.Y.S.2d 45, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bux-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack