People v. Hart

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hart

253 A.D.2d 667, 677 N.Y.S.2d 467, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9620

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

DecidedSeptember 22, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 253 A.D.2d 667 (People v. Hart) 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. Hart, 253 A.D.2d 667, 677 N.Y.S.2d 467, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9620 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Allen Alpert, J.), rendered January 7, 1997, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 12V2 to 25 years, unanimously affirmed.

Although defense counsel controverted the claims made in defendant’s pro se motion to withdraw his plea of guilty, defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel was not adversely affected since it is clear from the record that the court considered and denied defendant’s meritless motion [668]*668without being influenced by counsel’s remarks (see, People v Rodriguez, 189 AD2d 684, lv denied 81 NY2d 892).

The record establishes that defendant voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal the sentence imposed and is now foreclosed from arguing that his sentence is excessive (People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1). In any event, we perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur — Tom, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Allen Alpert, J.), rendered January 7, 1997, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 12V2 to 25 years, unanimously affirmed.

Although defense counsel controverted the claims made in defendant’s pro se motion to withdraw his plea of guilty, defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel was not adversely affected since it is clear from the record that the court considered and denied defendant’s meritless motion [668]*668without being influenced by counsel’s remarks (see, People v Rodriguez, 189 AD2d 684, lv denied 81 NY2d 892).

The record establishes that defendant voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal the sentence imposed and is now foreclosed from arguing that his sentence is excessive (People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1). In any event, we perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur — Tom, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 667, 677 N.Y.S.2d 467, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hart-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack