People v. Dumas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dumas

180 A.D.2d 845, 580 N.Y.S.2d 661, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1261

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 180 A.D.2d 845 (People v. Dumas) 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. Dumas, 180 A.D.2d 845, 580 N.Y.S.2d 661, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1261 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Franklin County (Main, Jr., J.), rendered March 4, 1991, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the third degree.

Initially, we note that upon his plea of guilty defendant waived his right to appeal the conviction (see, People v Brown, 160 AD2d 1039). In any event, the record fails to substantiate his claim that the People failed to keep their promise under the plea bargain with respect to their recommendation as to sentence. To support his claim, defendant points to some letters outside the record; these letters, however, were written prior to the plea. The record shows that at the plea County Court clearly and specifically stated the terms of the plea and defendant agreed without objection (see, People v Linares, 174 AD2d 847). We likewise reject defendant’s contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137).

[846]*846Weiss, P. J., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr. and Crew III, 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 Franklin County (Main, Jr., J.), rendered March 4, 1991, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the third degree.

Initially, we note that upon his plea of guilty defendant waived his right to appeal the conviction (see, People v Brown, 160 AD2d 1039). In any event, the record fails to substantiate his claim that the People failed to keep their promise under the plea bargain with respect to their recommendation as to sentence. To support his claim, defendant points to some letters outside the record; these letters, however, were written prior to the plea. The record shows that at the plea County Court clearly and specifically stated the terms of the plea and defendant agreed without objection (see, People v Linares, 174 AD2d 847). We likewise reject defendant’s contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137).

[846]*846Weiss, P. J., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr. and Crew III, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 A.D.2d 845, 580 N.Y.S.2d 661, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dumas-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack