People v. Casolino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Casolino

106 A.D.2d 394, 482 N.Y.S.2d 311, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21426

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

DecidedDecember 3, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 106 A.D.2d 394 (People v. Casolino) 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. Casolino, 106 A.D.2d 394, 482 N.Y.S.2d 311, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21426 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by defendant from a [395]*395judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Eiber, J.), rendered September 27,1979, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

By failing to either move to withdraw his plea of guilty prior to or at the time of sentencing or to move to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPL 440.10, defendant failed to preserve any error of law involving the adequacy of the plea allocution for appellate review (see People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636; People v Jackson, 101 AD2d 893). The interest of justice does not warrant reversal, since the allocution conducted by the court establishes that defendant knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty (see People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9; People v Nixon, 21 NY2d 338, cert den sub nom. Robinson v New York, 393 US 1067).

We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., O’Connor, Boyers and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by defendant from a [395]*395judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Eiber, J.), rendered September 27,1979, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

By failing to either move to withdraw his plea of guilty prior to or at the time of sentencing or to move to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPL 440.10, defendant failed to preserve any error of law involving the adequacy of the plea allocution for appellate review (see People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636; People v Jackson, 101 AD2d 893). The interest of justice does not warrant reversal, since the allocution conducted by the court establishes that defendant knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty (see People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9; People v Nixon, 21 NY2d 338, cert den sub nom. Robinson v New York, 393 US 1067).

We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., O’Connor, Boyers and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 A.D.2d 394, 482 N.Y.S.2d 311, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-casolino-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack