People v. De Simone

112 A.D.2d 443
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 29, 1985
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 112 A.D.2d 443 (People v. De Simone) 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. De Simone, 112 A.D.2d 443 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinion

Appeals by defendant from six judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), each rendered July 2, 1984, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree (two counts), criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree (three counts), and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing [444]*444sentences. The appeals bring up for review the denial, after a hearing, of defendant’s motion to withdraw his pleas of guilty.

Judgments affirmed.

We reject defendant’s contention that the court improperly denied his motion to withdraw his pleas of guilty inasmuch as the record reveals that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his rights and pleaded guilty (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9; People v Sprow, 104 AD2d 1056). The record provided no grounds for the withdrawal of those pleas (see, People v Ramos, 63 NY2d 640, 642-643). If defendant was dissatisfied with the terms of the proffered pleas his remedy was to refrain from pleading guilty (People v Jones, 81 AD2d 22, 23-24). We find defendant’s contentions that he was not adequately advised of his alternatives and the consequences of his pleas to be without merit. The record reveals that he was specifically advised of all the rights he was waiving by pleading guilty, including his possible defense of entrapment. Contrary to his contention that he was informed that he would receive mandatory maximum sentences if convicted after trial, we find that both the court and his attorney acted properly in advising him of the authorized maximum sentences which could have been imposed had he been convicted after trial. Brown, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Allen
273 A.D.2d 319 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
People v. McClure
236 A.D.2d 633 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
People v. Thompson
174 A.D.2d 702 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
People v. Cooper
173 A.D.2d 632 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
People v. Vera
171 A.D.2d 895 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
People v. Bourdonnay
160 A.D.2d 1014 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
People v. McNeil
157 A.D.2d 675 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
People v. Hagzan
155 A.D.2d 616 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
People v. Rodriguez
150 A.D.2d 812 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
People v. Napoli
145 A.D.2d 655 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
112 A.D.2d 443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-de-simone-nyappdiv-1985.