People v. Carlo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Carlo

68 A.D.3d 892, 889 N.Y.2d 470

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

DecidedDecember 8, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 68 A.D.3d 892 (People v. Carlo) 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. Carlo, 68 A.D.3d 892, 889 N.Y.2d 470 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant’s contention that the court failed to abide by its sentencing promise is unpreserved for appellate review since he did not raise it at the time of sentencing, and did not move to withdraw his plea on that ground (see People v Velez, 64 AD3d 799 [2009]; People v Scott, 39 AD3d 570 [2007]). In any event, that contention, as well as his claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel, are without merit. Fisher, J.P., Santucci, Dickerson, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

The defendant’s contention that the court failed to abide by its sentencing promise is unpreserved for appellate review since he did not raise it at the time of sentencing, and did not move to withdraw his plea on that ground (see People v Velez, 64 AD3d 799 [2009]; People v Scott, 39 AD3d 570 [2007]). In any event, that contention, as well as his claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel, are without merit. Fisher, J.P., Santucci, Dickerson, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.D.3d 892, 889 N.Y.2d 470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-carlo-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack