People v. Downing

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Downing

225 A.D.2d 1094, 639 N.Y.2d 766, 639 N.Y.S.2d 766, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3002

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

DecidedMarch 8, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 1094 (People v. Downing) 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. Downing, 225 A.D.2d 1094, 639 N.Y.2d 766, 639 N.Y.S.2d 766, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3002 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: By failing to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that his plea was not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made (see, People v Sparrow, 222 AD2d 1114; People v Jordan, 215 AD2d 257), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). We also reject the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Flores, 84 NY2d 184; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the sentence imposed is neither unduly harsh nor severe. We have reviewed the remaining contention raised by defendant and conclude that it is without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of [1095]*1095Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J. — Attempted Robbery, 2nd Degree.) Present — Lawton, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

Memorandum: By failing to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that his plea was not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made (see, People v Sparrow, 222 AD2d 1114; People v Jordan, 215 AD2d 257), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). We also reject the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Flores, 84 NY2d 184; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the sentence imposed is neither unduly harsh nor severe. We have reviewed the remaining contention raised by defendant and conclude that it is without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of [1095]*1095Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J. — Attempted Robbery, 2nd Degree.) Present — Lawton, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 1094, 639 N.Y.2d 766, 639 N.Y.S.2d 766, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3002, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-downing-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack