People v. Covington

265 A.D.2d 930, 696 N.Y.S.2d 733, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10070
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Covington. Read the opinion of the Court — 233 A.D.2d 169

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

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).

265 A.D.2d 930 (People v. Covington) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Toxey
655 N.E.2d 160 (New York Court of Appeals, 1995)
People v. Lopez
525 N.E.2d 5 (New York Court of Appeals, 1988)
People v. James
185 A.D.2d 702 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)