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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 22, 1998·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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] without 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] without 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.

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

253 A.D.2d 667 (People v. Hart) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related