People v. Harriott

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Harriott

277 A.D.2d 987, 716 N.Y.S.2d 343, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11529

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

DecidedNovember 13, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 277 A.D.2d 987 (People v. Harriott) 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. Harriott, 277 A.D.2d 987, 716 N.Y.S.2d 343, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11529 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of murder in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.27 [1] [a] [vii]; [b]) and murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [3]). By failing to move to withdraw his guilty plea or to vacate, the judgment of conviction, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that he did not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily enter his guilty plea (see, People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726, rearg denied 86 NY2d 839; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665). This is not one of those rare cases in which the statements of defendant engender significant doubt with respect to his guilt or otherwise call into question the voluntariness of the plea (see, People v Toxey, supra, at 726; People v Lopez, supra, at 666), “The record shows that defendant was advised of his rights and that his Alford plea (see, North Carolina v Alford, 400 US 25) was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered with a full understanding of its consequences” (People v Alfieri, 201 AD2d 935, lv denied 83 NY2d 908; see, People v Peralta, 231 AD2d 958, lv denied 90 NY2d 909). The bargained-for sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Chautauqua County Court, Ward, J. — Murder, 1st Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of murder in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.27 [1] [a] [vii]; [b]) and murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [3]). By failing to move to withdraw his guilty plea or to vacate, the judgment of conviction, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that he did not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily enter his guilty plea (see, People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726, rearg denied 86 NY2d 839; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665). This is not one of those rare cases in which the statements of defendant engender significant doubt with respect to his guilt or otherwise call into question the voluntariness of the plea (see, People v Toxey, supra, at 726; People v Lopez, supra, at 666), “The record shows that defendant was advised of his rights and that his Alford plea (see, North Carolina v Alford, 400 US 25) was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered with a full understanding of its consequences” (People v Alfieri, 201 AD2d 935, lv denied 83 NY2d 908; see, People v Peralta, 231 AD2d 958, lv denied 90 NY2d 909). The bargained-for sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Chautauqua County Court, Ward, J. — Murder, 1st Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 987, 716 N.Y.S.2d 343, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11529, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-harriott-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack