People v. Holmes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Holmes

126 A.D.2d 669, 511 N.Y.S.2d 96, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41804

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

DecidedJanuary 20, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 126 A.D.2d 669 (People v. Holmes) 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. Holmes, 126 A.D.2d 669, 511 N.Y.S.2d 96, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41804 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Moskowitz, J.), rendered January 22, 1985, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant maintains that his guilty plea to robbery in the first degree was improperly accepted by the trial court because during his plea allocution he indicated that a potential affirmative defense existed.

The defendant, in his brief, states that if this court determines that his only available remedy is vacatur of his plea, he "expressly waives his right to relief’. In view of that statement, the judgment of conviction is affirmed. Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence, Kooper and Spatt, 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, Kings County (Moskowitz, J.), rendered January 22, 1985, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant maintains that his guilty plea to robbery in the first degree was improperly accepted by the trial court because during his plea allocution he indicated that a potential affirmative defense existed.

The defendant, in his brief, states that if this court determines that his only available remedy is vacatur of his plea, he "expressly waives his right to relief’. In view of that statement, the judgment of conviction is affirmed. Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.2d 669, 511 N.Y.S.2d 96, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41804, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-holmes-nyappdiv-1987.