People v. Feliciano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Feliciano

114 A.D.2d 422, 494 N.Y.S.2d 340, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53106

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

DecidedOctober 15, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 114 A.D.2d 422 (People v. Feliciano) 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. Feliciano, 114 A.D.2d 422, 494 N.Y.S.2d 340, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53106 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Felig, J.), both rendered August 23, 1984, convicting him of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Judgments affirmed.

Defendant failed to raise his objections to the adequacy of his plea allocution in the court of first instance and, accordingly, has not preserved his claims for appellate review (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636). In any event, there is no requirement that the court specifically enumerate all of the rights to which defendant is entitled. The record shows that defendant’s pleas were entered knowingly and voluntarily (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9).

Defendant’s sentences were well under the maximum permitted and the prison terms imposed were actually shorter than were bargained for. Under these circumstances, defendant has no basis to complain that his sentences were excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). O’Connor, J. P., Rubin, Fiber and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Felig, J.), both rendered August 23, 1984, convicting him of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Judgments affirmed.

Defendant failed to raise his objections to the adequacy of his plea allocution in the court of first instance and, accordingly, has not preserved his claims for appellate review (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636). In any event, there is no requirement that the court specifically enumerate all of the rights to which defendant is entitled. The record shows that defendant’s pleas were entered knowingly and voluntarily (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9).

Defendant’s sentences were well under the maximum permitted and the prison terms imposed were actually shorter than were bargained for. Under these circumstances, defendant has no basis to complain that his sentences were excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). O’Connor, J. P., Rubin, Fiber and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D.2d 422, 494 N.Y.S.2d 340, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-feliciano-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack