People v. Cervino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cervino

232 A.D.2d 501, 648 N.Y.S.2d 350, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10150

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

DecidedOctober 15, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 232 A.D.2d 501 (People v. Cervino) 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. Cervino, 232 A.D.2d 501, 648 N.Y.S.2d 350, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10150 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Chetta, J.), rendered May 18, 1995, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We reject the defendant’s contention that the court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty without conducting a hearing. Since the defendant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his contentions, and the court was able to make an informed decision, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in failing to conduct a hearing (see, People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926, 927; People v Jaworowski, 201 AD2d 504). Moreover, the defendant’s motion was without merit (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9; see also, People v Rogers, 228 AD2d 623; People v Kelly, 198 AD2d 305; People v Bourdonnay, 160 AD2d 1014, 1015). Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Pizzuto, Goldstein and Luciano, 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, Queens County (Chetta, J.), rendered May 18, 1995, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We reject the defendant’s contention that the court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty without conducting a hearing. Since the defendant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his contentions, and the court was able to make an informed decision, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in failing to conduct a hearing (see, People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926, 927; People v Jaworowski, 201 AD2d 504). Moreover, the defendant’s motion was without merit (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9; see also, People v Rogers, 228 AD2d 623; People v Kelly, 198 AD2d 305; People v Bourdonnay, 160 AD2d 1014, 1015). Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Pizzuto, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 A.D.2d 501, 648 N.Y.S.2d 350, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cervino-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack