People v. Chavis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Chavis

166 A.D.2d 926, 561 N.Y.S.2d 674, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12259

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

DecidedOctober 5, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 166 A.D.2d 926 (People v. Chavis) 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. Chavis, 166 A.D.2d 926, 561 N.Y.S.2d 674, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12259 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting defendant of two counts of first degree rape, defendant argues that the court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his plea and in ordering him to pay restitution to one of the victims. We find that the court’s plea colloquy was sufficient, and there is no evidence that defendant was under duress when he entered his plea. Therefore, the court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to set aside the plea. Defendant did not object to the restitution portion of his sentence (see, People v Fuller, 57 NY2d 152, 156) and, in any event, the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering restitution (see, People v Turco, 130 AD2d 785, lv denied 70 NY2d 755). (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J. —rape, first degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting defendant of two counts of first degree rape, defendant argues that the court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his plea and in ordering him to pay restitution to one of the victims. We find that the court’s plea colloquy was sufficient, and there is no evidence that defendant was under duress when he entered his plea. Therefore, the court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to set aside the plea. Defendant did not object to the restitution portion of his sentence (see, People v Fuller, 57 NY2d 152, 156) and, in any event, the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering restitution (see, People v Turco, 130 AD2d 785, lv denied 70 NY2d 755). (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J. —rape, first degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 A.D.2d 926, 561 N.Y.S.2d 674, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-chavis-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack