People v. Gory

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gory

220 A.D.2d 614, 633 N.Y.S.2d 970, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10278

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

DecidedOctober 16, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 220 A.D.2d 614 (People v. Gory) 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. Gory, 220 A.D.2d 614, 633 N.Y.S.2d 970, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10278 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Marlow, J.), rendered September 14, 1994, convicting him of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that he is entitled to withdraw his plea of guilty because it was improperly conditioned upon a waiver of his constitutional right to a speedy trial (see, CPL 30.20; People v Blakley, 34 NY2d 311). However, the defendant failed to raise this contention by motion to vacate or in any other manner prior to this appeal. Therefore, this contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Santucci and Hart, 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 (Marlow, J.), rendered September 14, 1994, convicting him of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that he is entitled to withdraw his plea of guilty because it was improperly conditioned upon a waiver of his constitutional right to a speedy trial (see, CPL 30.20; People v Blakley, 34 NY2d 311). However, the defendant failed to raise this contention by motion to vacate or in any other manner prior to this appeal. Therefore, this contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D.2d 614, 633 N.Y.S.2d 970, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10278, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gory-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack