People v. Hodge

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hodge

226 A.D.2d 1124, 642 N.Y.S.2d 832, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5654

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

DecidedApril 19, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 226 A.D.2d 1124 (People v. Hodge) 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. Hodge, 226 A.D.2d 1124, 642 N.Y.S.2d 832, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5654 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying, without a hearing, the motion of defendant to withdraw his guilty plea prior to sentencing (see, CPL 220.60 [3]; People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926, 927; People v Boothman, 217 AD2d 1007). The contention that trial counsel failed to advise defendant that his sentence would run concurrently with a sentence he was serving on a prior conviction is based upon matters outside the record. Therefore, defendant is relegated to a motion for postjudgment relief (see, CPL 440.10; People v Larrabee, 201 AD2d 924, lv denied 83 NY2d 855; see also, People v Ramos, 63 NY2d 640). Finally, from our review of the record, we conclude that defendant voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see, People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909; People v Underwood, 210 AD2d 994). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolfgang, J.—Attempted Criminal Possession Forged Instrument, 2nd Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying, without a hearing, the motion of defendant to withdraw his guilty plea prior to sentencing (see, CPL 220.60 [3]; People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926, 927; People v Boothman, 217 AD2d 1007). The contention that trial counsel failed to advise defendant that his sentence would run concurrently with a sentence he was serving on a prior conviction is based upon matters outside the record. Therefore, defendant is relegated to a motion for postjudgment relief (see, CPL 440.10; People v Larrabee, 201 AD2d 924, lv denied 83 NY2d 855; see also, People v Ramos, 63 NY2d 640). Finally, from our review of the record, we conclude that defendant voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see, People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909; People v Underwood, 210 AD2d 994). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolfgang, J.—Attempted Criminal Possession Forged Instrument, 2nd Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 1124, 642 N.Y.S.2d 832, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hodge-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack