People v. Grant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Grant

269 A.D.2d 267, 702 N.Y.S.2d 823, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1573

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

DecidedFebruary 17, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 269 A.D.2d 267 (People v. Grant) 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. Grant, 269 A.D.2d 267, 702 N.Y.S.2d 823, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1573 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.), rendered January 11, 1995, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 2Vs to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

Assuming arguendo that defendant’s post-sentencing CPL 440.20 motion encompassed a motion to vacate judgment pursuant to CPL 440.10, he still failed to argue that his plea allocution was deficient for lack of an admission to being aided by others actually present, and the issue is therefore unpreserved for review. Moreover, that motion is not properly before this Court because defendant did not obtain leave to appeal from the order denying the motion (CPL 450.15, 460.15). We find the plea to be knowing, intelligent and voluntary, and that nothing in the allocution cast doubt on defendant’s guilt (see, People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.), rendered January 11, 1995, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 2Vs to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

Assuming arguendo that defendant’s post-sentencing CPL 440.20 motion encompassed a motion to vacate judgment pursuant to CPL 440.10, he still failed to argue that his plea allocution was deficient for lack of an admission to being aided by others actually present, and the issue is therefore unpreserved for review. Moreover, that motion is not properly before this Court because defendant did not obtain leave to appeal from the order denying the motion (CPL 450.15, 460.15). We find the plea to be knowing, intelligent and voluntary, and that nothing in the allocution cast doubt on defendant’s guilt (see, People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 267, 702 N.Y.S.2d 823, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-grant-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack