People v. Estrella

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Estrella

37 A.D.3d 277, 828 N.Y.S.2d 809

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

DecidedFebruary 15, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.D.3d 277 (People v. Estrella) 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. Estrella, 37 A.D.3d 277, 828 N.Y.S.2d 809 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles J. Tejada, J.), rendered June 15, 2005, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of conspiracy in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of IV2 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s unpreserved challenge to the validity of his plea falls outside the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725 [1995]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would conclude that defendant’s plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary, and that there was no indication that further inquiry was required to determine whether the plea was induced by the prosecutor’s agreement not to prosecute defendant’s sister (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536 [1993]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P, Andrias, Friedman, Sweeny and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles J. Tejada, J.), rendered June 15, 2005, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of conspiracy in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of IV2 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s unpreserved challenge to the validity of his plea falls outside the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725 [1995]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would conclude that defendant’s plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary, and that there was no indication that further inquiry was required to determine whether the plea was induced by the prosecutor’s agreement not to prosecute defendant’s sister (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536 [1993]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P, Andrias, Friedman, Sweeny and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.3d 277, 828 N.Y.S.2d 809, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-estrella-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack