People v. Conde

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Conde

34 A.D.3d 1347, 825 N.Y.S.2d 605

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

DecidedNovember 17, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 34 A.D.3d 1347 (People v. Conde) 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. Conde, 34 A.D.3d 1347, 825 N.Y.S.2d 605 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (James R. Harvey, J.), rendered September 15, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02 [4]). We reject the contention of defendant that County Court abused its discretion in denying his motion at sentencing seeking to withdraw his plea (see CPL 220.60 [3]). The assertion of innocence by defendant in support of the motion is belied by his admission of guilt during the plea colloquy (see People v Viscomi, 286 AD2d 886, 887 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 763 [2002]). Even assuming, arguendo, that the motion to withdraw the plea preserved for our review defendant’s challenge to the factual sufficiency of the [1348]*1348plea allocution, we conclude that defendant’s contention is without merit. Defendant admitted during the plea colloquy that, while a passenger in a vehicle, he possessed the components of a firearm and ammunition, and that when assembled, the firearm was operable (see Penal Law § 265.00 [15]; § 265.02 [4]). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Scudder, J.E, Kehoe, Martoche and Green, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (James R. Harvey, J.), rendered September 15, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02 [4]). We reject the contention of defendant that County Court abused its discretion in denying his motion at sentencing seeking to withdraw his plea (see CPL 220.60 [3]). The assertion of innocence by defendant in support of the motion is belied by his admission of guilt during the plea colloquy (see People v Viscomi, 286 AD2d 886, 887 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 763 [2002]). Even assuming, arguendo, that the motion to withdraw the plea preserved for our review defendant’s challenge to the factual sufficiency of the [1348]*1348plea allocution, we conclude that defendant’s contention is without merit. Defendant admitted during the plea colloquy that, while a passenger in a vehicle, he possessed the components of a firearm and ammunition, and that when assembled, the firearm was operable (see Penal Law § 265.00 [15]; § 265.02 [4]). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Scudder, J.E, Kehoe, Martoche and Green, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.3d 1347, 825 N.Y.S.2d 605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-conde-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack