People v. Guerrero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Guerrero

140 A.D.2d 456, 528 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4905

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

DecidedMay 9, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 140 A.D.2d 456 (People v. Guerrero) 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. Guerrero, 140 A.D.2d 456, 528 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4905 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant contends that the court erred in vacating his prior plea of guilty. That issue was waived, however, by the entry of the subsequent plea of guilty which resulted in the judgment from which the defendant now appeals. In any event, we have reviewed the merits of his claim and find that the record supports the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the defendant obtained his prior plea by fraud and, therefore, it correctly vacated that plea and reinstated the indictment (see, Matter of Lockett v Juviler, 65 NY2d 182; writ granted sub nom. Warren v Montemango, 618 F Supp 147, revd sub nom. Lockett v Montemango, 784 F2d 78, cert denied 479 US 832, 107 S Ct 120).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining claim with [457]*457regard to the excessiveness of his sentence and find it to be without merit (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Brown, Weinstein and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

The defendant contends that the court erred in vacating his prior plea of guilty. That issue was waived, however, by the entry of the subsequent plea of guilty which resulted in the judgment from which the defendant now appeals. In any event, we have reviewed the merits of his claim and find that the record supports the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the defendant obtained his prior plea by fraud and, therefore, it correctly vacated that plea and reinstated the indictment (see, Matter of Lockett v Juviler, 65 NY2d 182; writ granted sub nom. Warren v Montemango, 618 F Supp 147, revd sub nom. Lockett v Montemango, 784 F2d 78, cert denied 479 US 832, 107 S Ct 120).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining claim with [457]*457regard to the excessiveness of his sentence and find it to be without merit (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Brown, Weinstein and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.2d 456, 528 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-guerrero-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack