People v. Handlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Handlin

156 A.D.2d 380, 548 N.Y.S.2d 334, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15454

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

DecidedDecember 4, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 156 A.D.2d 380 (People v. Handlin) 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. Handlin, 156 A.D.2d 380, 548 N.Y.S.2d 334, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15454 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mclnerney, J.), rendered July 29, 1987, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that his plea of guilty was coerced is unpreserved for appellate review and in any event is refuted by the record (see, People v Mattocks, 100 AD2d 944; see also, People v Corwise, 120 AD2d 604). To the extent that the defendant separately claims that his right to a speedy trial was violated, and to the extent that such a claim might otherwise survive his guilty plea (see, People v Friscia, 51 NY2d 845; People v Walker, 109 AD2d 858; see also, People v Blakely, 34 NY2d 311; People v Thomas, 74 AD2d 317, affd 53 NY2d 338), we note that the defendant made no motion to dismiss the indictment on speedy trial grounds. The issue is therefore unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Thomas, supra, at 321). Finally, the defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive the sentence which was thereafter actually imposed and we discern no basis for disturbing that sentence (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Mollen, P. J., Lawrence, Hooper and Harwood, 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 Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mclnerney, J.), rendered July 29, 1987, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that his plea of guilty was coerced is unpreserved for appellate review and in any event is refuted by the record (see, People v Mattocks, 100 AD2d 944; see also, People v Corwise, 120 AD2d 604). To the extent that the defendant separately claims that his right to a speedy trial was violated, and to the extent that such a claim might otherwise survive his guilty plea (see, People v Friscia, 51 NY2d 845; People v Walker, 109 AD2d 858; see also, People v Blakely, 34 NY2d 311; People v Thomas, 74 AD2d 317, affd 53 NY2d 338), we note that the defendant made no motion to dismiss the indictment on speedy trial grounds. The issue is therefore unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Thomas, supra, at 321). Finally, the defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive the sentence which was thereafter actually imposed and we discern no basis for disturbing that sentence (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Mollen, P. J., Lawrence, Hooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 A.D.2d 380, 548 N.Y.S.2d 334, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-handlin-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack