People v. Chrysler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Chrysler

241 A.D.2d 975, 661 N.Y.S.2d 391, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7938

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

DecidedJuly 3, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 241 A.D.2d 975 (People v. Chrysler) 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. Chrysler, 241 A.D.2d 975, 661 N.Y.S.2d 391, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7938 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Pursuant to the direction of this Court (People v Chrysler, 233 AD2d 928), defendant was assigned new counsel and County Court heard oral argument on the motion of defendant to withdraw his guilty plea. The record of that proceeding establishes that defendant was given a reasonable opportunity to advance his contentions, and we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion (see, People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926, 927; People v Parker, 222 AD2d 1104, lv denied 87 NY2d 1023).

There is no merit to the contention that, during his plea allocution, defendant raised the possibility of an intoxication defense and that the court therefore erred in accepting his guilty plea without making further inquiry (cf., People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666-668). (Resubmission of Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, Rogowski, J.—Grand Larceny, 3rd Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Callahan and Doerr, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Pursuant to the direction of this Court (People v Chrysler, 233 AD2d 928), defendant was assigned new counsel and County Court heard oral argument on the motion of defendant to withdraw his guilty plea. The record of that proceeding establishes that defendant was given a reasonable opportunity to advance his contentions, and we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion (see, People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926, 927; People v Parker, 222 AD2d 1104, lv denied 87 NY2d 1023).

There is no merit to the contention that, during his plea allocution, defendant raised the possibility of an intoxication defense and that the court therefore erred in accepting his guilty plea without making further inquiry (cf., People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666-668). (Resubmission of Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, Rogowski, J.—Grand Larceny, 3rd Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Callahan and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 A.D.2d 975, 661 N.Y.S.2d 391, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7938, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-chrysler-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack