People v. Crowell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Crowell

273 A.D.2d 321, 710 N.Y.S.2d 549, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6472

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

DecidedJune 12, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 273 A.D.2d 321 (People v. Crowell) 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. Crowell, 273 A.D.2d 321, 710 N.Y.S.2d 549, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6472 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Ohlig, J.), rendered October 7, 1998, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his claim that his plea allocution was defective since he did not move to withdraw his plea of guilty (see, People v Bell, 47 NY2d 839; People v Willingham, 194 AD2d 703). This case does not fit within the narrow exception to the preservation doctrine set forth in People v Lopez (71 NY2d 662) and People v Serrano (15 NY2d 304; see, People v Willingham, supra). Since the plea was part of a knowing and voluntary bargain, we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to review the defendant’s contention.

The defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive the sentence which was thereafter actually imposed. Therefore, he has no basis to now complain that the sentence was excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, 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 County Court, Suffolk County (Ohlig, J.), rendered October 7, 1998, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his claim that his plea allocution was defective since he did not move to withdraw his plea of guilty (see, People v Bell, 47 NY2d 839; People v Willingham, 194 AD2d 703). This case does not fit within the narrow exception to the preservation doctrine set forth in People v Lopez (71 NY2d 662) and People v Serrano (15 NY2d 304; see, People v Willingham, supra). Since the plea was part of a knowing and voluntary bargain, we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to review the defendant’s contention.

The defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive the sentence which was thereafter actually imposed. Therefore, he has no basis to now complain that the sentence was excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 321, 710 N.Y.S.2d 549, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6472, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-crowell-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack