People v. Covington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Covington

265 A.D.2d 930, 696 N.Y.S.2d 733, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10070

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

DecidedOctober 1, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 265 A.D.2d 930 (People v. Covington) 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. Covington, 265 A.D.2d 930, 696 N.Y.S.2d 733, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10070 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction and therefore failed to preserve for our review his contention that the plea colloquy was insufficient (see, People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726, rearg denied 86 NY2d 839; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665). This is not one of those rare cases in which the statements of defendant engender significant doubt with respect to his guilt or otherwise call into question the voluntariness of the plea (see, People v Toxey, supra; People v Lopez, supra, at 666). County Court properly determined that the identification procedures used by the investigating officers were not unduly suggestive (see, People v James, 185 AD2d 702, lv denied 80 NY2d 930). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Henry, Jr., J. — Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 5th Degree.) Present — Lawton, J. P., Hayes, Pigott, Jr., Hurlbutt and Scudder, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction and therefore failed to preserve for our review his contention that the plea colloquy was insufficient (see, People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726, rearg denied 86 NY2d 839; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665). This is not one of those rare cases in which the statements of defendant engender significant doubt with respect to his guilt or otherwise call into question the voluntariness of the plea (see, People v Toxey, supra; People v Lopez, supra, at 666). County Court properly determined that the identification procedures used by the investigating officers were not unduly suggestive (see, People v James, 185 AD2d 702, lv denied 80 NY2d 930). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Henry, Jr., J. — Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 5th Degree.) Present — Lawton, J. P., Hayes, Pigott, Jr., Hurlbutt and Scudder, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 930, 696 N.Y.S.2d 733, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10070, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-covington-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack