People v. Charlot

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Charlot

203 A.D.2d 374, 612 N.Y.S.2d 908

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 11, 1994·Published

Opinion

—Appeal by the [375]*375defendant from four judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), all rendered December 23, 1992, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree under Indictment No. 8183/91, attempted robbery in the second degree under Indictment No. 9219/91, robbery in the first degree under Indictment No. 9453/91, and robbery in the first degree, assault in the first degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree under Indictment No. 9866/92, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

A review of the record demonstrates that the defendant fully understood the connotations of his plea and its consequences (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9).

In addition, the defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive the sentence which was imposed, and under the circumstances of this case, he has no basis to complain that the sentence was excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). Mangano, P. J., Balletta, O’Brien, Hart and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the [375]*375defendant from four judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), all rendered December 23, 1992, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree under Indictment No. 8183/91, attempted robbery in the second degree under Indictment No. 9219/91, robbery in the first degree under Indictment No. 9453/91, and robbery in the first degree, assault in the first degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree under Indictment No. 9866/92, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

A review of the record demonstrates that the defendant fully understood the connotations of his plea and its consequences (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9).

In addition, the defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive the sentence which was imposed, and under the circumstances of this case, he has no basis to complain that the sentence was excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). Mangano, P. J., Balletta, O’Brien, Hart and Florio, JJ., concur.

People v. Charlot, 203 A.D.2d 374, 612 N.Y.S.2d 908 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

203 A.D.2d 374 (People v. Charlot) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related