People v. Gee

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gee

185 A.D.2d 244

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

DecidedJuly 6, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 185 A.D.2d 244 (People v. Gee) 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. Gee, 185 A.D.2d 244 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Sherman, J.), rendered January 4, 1991, convicting him of attempted rob[245]*245bery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

While the defendant purports to challenge for the first time on appeal both the knowing and voluntary nature of his plea of guilty as well as the legal sufficiency of his allocution of the facts of the crime, these issues have not been preserved for appellate review (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636; People v McVay, 148 AD2d 474; see also, People v Claudio, 64 NY2d 858, 859). In any event, upon our review of the minutes of the plea proceeding, we find that the defendant’s plea was knowing and voluntary and that the allocution was factually sufficient (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666). Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood, Rosenblatt and Copertino, 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, Suffolk County (Sherman, J.), rendered January 4, 1991, convicting him of attempted rob[245]*245bery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

While the defendant purports to challenge for the first time on appeal both the knowing and voluntary nature of his plea of guilty as well as the legal sufficiency of his allocution of the facts of the crime, these issues have not been preserved for appellate review (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636; People v McVay, 148 AD2d 474; see also, People v Claudio, 64 NY2d 858, 859). In any event, upon our review of the minutes of the plea proceeding, we find that the defendant’s plea was knowing and voluntary and that the allocution was factually sufficient (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666). Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood, Rosenblatt and Copertino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 A.D.2d 244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gee-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack