People v. Gastin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gastin

121 A.D.2d 656, 504 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58640

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

DecidedJune 23, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 121 A.D.2d 656 (People v. Gastin) 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. Gastin, 121 A.D.2d 656, 504 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58640 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (King, J.), rendered November 21, 1984, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

By his plea of guilty, the defendant has forfeited the right to appellate review of any nonjurisdictional defects in the proceedings (see, People v Fernandez, 67 NY2d 686). The court’s Sandoval ruling and the sufficiency of the evidence before the Grand Jury are thus not properly presented for review, as they do not fall into the same category as a challenge to the court’s jurisdiction (see, People v Pelchat, 62 NY2d 97, 108; People v Dunbar, 53 NY2d 868; People v Kazmarick, 52 NY2d 322; People v Thomas, 74 AD2d 317, 321, affd 53 NY2d 338; People v Zangrillo, 105 AD2d 822).

In any event, the defendant’s contentions are without merit. Gibbons, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Kooper, 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 County Court, Dutchess County (King, J.), rendered November 21, 1984, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

By his plea of guilty, the defendant has forfeited the right to appellate review of any nonjurisdictional defects in the proceedings (see, People v Fernandez, 67 NY2d 686). The court’s Sandoval ruling and the sufficiency of the evidence before the Grand Jury are thus not properly presented for review, as they do not fall into the same category as a challenge to the court’s jurisdiction (see, People v Pelchat, 62 NY2d 97, 108; People v Dunbar, 53 NY2d 868; People v Kazmarick, 52 NY2d 322; People v Thomas, 74 AD2d 317, 321, affd 53 NY2d 338; People v Zangrillo, 105 AD2d 822).

In any event, the defendant’s contentions are without merit. Gibbons, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D.2d 656, 504 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58640, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gastin-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack