People v. Conti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Conti

285 A.D.2d 557, 727 N.Y.S.2d 884, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7434

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

DecidedJuly 16, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 285 A.D.2d 557 (People v. Conti) 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. Conti, 285 A.D.2d 557, 727 N.Y.S.2d 884, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7434 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Grosso, J.), both rendered November 23, 1998, convicting him of attempted assault in the first degree (two counts, one each as to Superior Court Information Nos. 2942/98 and 3429/98), upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the comments he made at sentencing did not call into question the voluntariness of his pleas. Therefore, the Supreme Court was not under a duty to inquire, sua sponte, into the validity of his pleas, or to offer him an opportunity to withdraw his pleas before imposing sentence (see, People v Jackson, 273 AD2d 937; People v Riley, 264 AD2d 689; see generally, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662). O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Grosso, J.), both rendered November 23, 1998, convicting him of attempted assault in the first degree (two counts, one each as to Superior Court Information Nos. 2942/98 and 3429/98), upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the comments he made at sentencing did not call into question the voluntariness of his pleas. Therefore, the Supreme Court was not under a duty to inquire, sua sponte, into the validity of his pleas, or to offer him an opportunity to withdraw his pleas before imposing sentence (see, People v Jackson, 273 AD2d 937; People v Riley, 264 AD2d 689; see generally, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662). O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D.2d 557, 727 N.Y.S.2d 884, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-conti-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack