People v. Di Rose

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Di Rose

210 A.D.2d 700, 621 N.Y.S.2d 940, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12697

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 210 A.D.2d 700 (People v. Di Rose) 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. Di Rose, 210 A.D.2d 700, 621 N.Y.S.2d 940, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12697 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Keegan, J.), rendered June 4, 1992, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of two counts of the crime of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree.

Initially, we find no support in the record for defendant’s claim that his plea was not voluntarily made because he was confused and coerced. To the contrary, a review of the plea minutes reveals that the plea was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made. Defendant also contends that the aggregate prison sentence he received as a.second felony offender of 7 to 14 years was harsh and excessive. In rejecting this contention, we note that defendant’s plea was in satisfaction of a five-count indictment and the sentence imposed was in accordance with the plea bargain. Accordingly, we decline to disturb the sentence imposed by County Court. We have considered the remaining arguments raised by defendant, in his pro se brief on appeal and have rejected them as lacking in merit.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, White, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Keegan, J.), rendered June 4, 1992, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of two counts of the crime of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree.

Initially, we find no support in the record for defendant’s claim that his plea was not voluntarily made because he was confused and coerced. To the contrary, a review of the plea minutes reveals that the plea was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made. Defendant also contends that the aggregate prison sentence he received as a.second felony offender of 7 to 14 years was harsh and excessive. In rejecting this contention, we note that defendant’s plea was in satisfaction of a five-count indictment and the sentence imposed was in accordance with the plea bargain. Accordingly, we decline to disturb the sentence imposed by County Court. We have considered the remaining arguments raised by defendant, in his pro se brief on appeal and have rejected them as lacking in merit.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, White, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 700, 621 N.Y.S.2d 940, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-di-rose-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack