People v. Dickerson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dickerson

110 A.D.2d 846, 488 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48753

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

DecidedApril 22, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 110 A.D.2d 846 (People v. Dickerson) 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. Dickerson, 110 A.D.2d 846, 488 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48753 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Criminal Term did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea (CPL 220.60 [3]). Although at the time of the plea the court agreed to sentence defendant to an indeterminate term of IV2 to AV2 years, it also specifically advised him that there were no promises as to the sentence if he failed to appear for sentencing or failed to report to the Department of Probation or was rearrested prior to sentencing. Therefore, defendant, who acknowledged his understanding of these conditions and agreed to them, cannot be heard to complain that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion to vacate his plea, when it imposed a higher sentence based upon defendant’s having violated each of these conditions [847]*847(People v Mack, 107 AD2d 822; People v Davis, 106 AD2d 657; cf. People v Innes, 107 AD2d 712). Lazer, J. P., O’Connor, Weinstein and Brown, JJ., concur.

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

Criminal Term did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea (CPL 220.60 [3]). Although at the time of the plea the court agreed to sentence defendant to an indeterminate term of IV2 to AV2 years, it also specifically advised him that there were no promises as to the sentence if he failed to appear for sentencing or failed to report to the Department of Probation or was rearrested prior to sentencing. Therefore, defendant, who acknowledged his understanding of these conditions and agreed to them, cannot be heard to complain that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion to vacate his plea, when it imposed a higher sentence based upon defendant’s having violated each of these conditions [847]*847(People v Mack, 107 AD2d 822; People v Davis, 106 AD2d 657; cf. People v Innes, 107 AD2d 712). Lazer, J. P., O’Connor, Weinstein and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A.D.2d 846, 488 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48753, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dickerson-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack