People v. Duhaney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Duhaney

295 A.D.2d 362, 742 N.Y.S.2d 917, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5752

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

DecidedJune 3, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 295 A.D.2d 362 (People v. Duhaney) 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. Duhaney, 295 A.D.2d 362, 742 N.Y.S.2d 917, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5752 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrero, J.), rendered March 24, 2000, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court properly declined to recognize an alleged cooperation agreement, denied the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea without a hearing, and sentenced him in accordance with the plea agreement placed on the record (see People v Huertas, 85 NY2d 898; Matter of Benjamin S., 55 NY2d 116, 121; People v Arellano, 281 AD2d 553).

The defendant’s remaining contentions in his supplemental pro se brief and its addendum are either without merit or concern matters which are dehors the record (see CPL 440.10; People v Herring, 274 AD2d 525, 526). Prudenti, P.J., S. Miller, O’Brien, McGinity and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrero, J.), rendered March 24, 2000, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court properly declined to recognize an alleged cooperation agreement, denied the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea without a hearing, and sentenced him in accordance with the plea agreement placed on the record (see People v Huertas, 85 NY2d 898; Matter of Benjamin S., 55 NY2d 116, 121; People v Arellano, 281 AD2d 553).

The defendant’s remaining contentions in his supplemental pro se brief and its addendum are either without merit or concern matters which are dehors the record (see CPL 440.10; People v Herring, 274 AD2d 525, 526). Prudenti, P.J., S. Miller, O’Brien, McGinity and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 362, 742 N.Y.S.2d 917, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-duhaney-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack