People v. Finstad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Finstad

195 A.D.2d 976, 602 N.Y.S.2d 568, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7755

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

DecidedJuly 16, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 195 A.D.2d 976 (People v. Finstad) 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. Finstad, 195 A.D.2d 976, 602 N.Y.S.2d 568, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7755 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s application to withdraw his Alford plea (see, North Carolina v Alford, 400 US 25). The sole basis for withdrawal articulated by defense counsel prior to sentencing was defendant’s disapproval of a comment in the presentence investigation report and a remark by the prosecutor that defendant is a "predator of children”. That was insufficient to warrant the court’s exercise of discretion in defendant’s favor.

The record indicates that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to appeal (see, People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273). Thus, we do not reach defendant’s contentions that the suppression court erred in refusing to suppress certain physical evidence and that the probation conditions imposed by the sentencing court were unduly harsh. Were we to review the merits, we would nevertheless affirm. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Forma, J.—Sexual Abuse, 1st Degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Balio, Doerr, Boomer and Boehm, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s application to withdraw his Alford plea (see, North Carolina v Alford, 400 US 25). The sole basis for withdrawal articulated by defense counsel prior to sentencing was defendant’s disapproval of a comment in the presentence investigation report and a remark by the prosecutor that defendant is a "predator of children”. That was insufficient to warrant the court’s exercise of discretion in defendant’s favor.

The record indicates that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to appeal (see, People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273). Thus, we do not reach defendant’s contentions that the suppression court erred in refusing to suppress certain physical evidence and that the probation conditions imposed by the sentencing court were unduly harsh. Were we to review the merits, we would nevertheless affirm. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Forma, J.—Sexual Abuse, 1st Degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Balio, Doerr, Boomer and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

195 A.D.2d 976, 602 N.Y.S.2d 568, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7755, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-finstad-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack