People v. Grimes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Grimes

94 A.D.2d 957, 464 N.Y.S.2d 82, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18437

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

DecidedMay 25, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 94 A.D.2d 957 (People v. Grimes) 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. Grimes, 94 A.D.2d 957, 464 N.Y.S.2d 82, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18437 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously reversed, motion granted and defendant remanded to Monroe County Court for resentencing. Memorandum: It was error for the court to deny the People’s motion to sentence defendant as a second felony offender. “A challenge to a plea based on an insufficient factual recitation is to be distinguished from a challenge based on constitutional grounds” and may not properly be raised for the first time in a second felony offender adjudication (People v Perkins, 89 AD2d 956; see, also, People v Fooks, 21 NY2d 338, 350, cert den sub nom. Robinson v New York, 393 US 1067). Nor was any evidence submitted that defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel in the prior proceeding or that there was a “significant possibility” of a conflict of interest as a result of counsel’s joint representation in the prior plea negotiations (People v Monroe, 54 NY2d 35, cert den 455 US 947). (Appeal from order of Monroe County Court, Barr, J. — second felony offender.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Denman, Green and Moule, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously reversed, motion granted and defendant remanded to Monroe County Court for resentencing. Memorandum: It was error for the court to deny the People’s motion to sentence defendant as a second felony offender. “A challenge to a plea based on an insufficient factual recitation is to be distinguished from a challenge based on constitutional grounds” and may not properly be raised for the first time in a second felony offender adjudication (People v Perkins, 89 AD2d 956; see, also, People v Fooks, 21 NY2d 338, 350, cert den sub nom. Robinson v New York, 393 US 1067). Nor was any evidence submitted that defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel in the prior proceeding or that there was a “significant possibility” of a conflict of interest as a result of counsel’s joint representation in the prior plea negotiations (People v Monroe, 54 NY2d 35, cert den 455 US 947). (Appeal from order of Monroe County Court, Barr, J. — second felony offender.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Denman, Green and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 A.D.2d 957, 464 N.Y.S.2d 82, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-grimes-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack