People v. Davis

110 A.D.2d 776, 488 N.Y.S.2d 57, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48681
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Davis. Read the opinion of the Court — 92 A.D.2d 177

Opinion

Having failed to raise any objection to the adequacy of the plea allocution in the court of first instance, defendant has failed to preserve the issue for appellate review as a matter of law (People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636). Furthermore, we conclude [777]*777that a reversal is not warranted in the interest of justice (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit (see, People v Morse, 62 NY2d 205; People v Vasquez, 104 AD2d 1012; People v Cates, 104 AD2d 895). Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Davis, 110 A.D.2d 776, 488 N.Y.S.2d 57, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48681 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

110 A.D.2d 776 (People v. Davis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Pellegrino
454 N.E.2d 938 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)
People v. Harris
459 N.E.2d 170 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)
People v. Morse
465 N.E.2d 12 (New York Court of Appeals, 1984)
People v. Cates
104 A.D.2d 895 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
People v. Vasquez
104 A.D.2d 1012 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)