People v. Collazo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Collazo

125 A.D.2d 404, 508 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62684

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

DecidedDecember 8, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 125 A.D.2d 404 (People v. Collazo) 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. Collazo, 125 A.D.2d 404, 508 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62684 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sherman, J.), rendered November 22, 1982, convicting him of reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Since the issues raised by the defendant concerning his plea of guilty were not presented to the court of first instance, those issues have not been preserved for our review (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636). Review in the interest of justice is not warranted.

Moreover, there is no reason to disturb the bargained for sentence, which included the imposition of a $75 felony surcharge (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816; People v Barnes, 62 NY2d 702). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence and Kooper, 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 (Sherman, J.), rendered November 22, 1982, convicting him of reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Since the issues raised by the defendant concerning his plea of guilty were not presented to the court of first instance, those issues have not been preserved for our review (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636). Review in the interest of justice is not warranted.

Moreover, there is no reason to disturb the bargained for sentence, which included the imposition of a $75 felony surcharge (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816; People v Barnes, 62 NY2d 702). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 A.D.2d 404, 508 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-collazo-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack