People v. Ince

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ince

273 A.D.2d 101, 710 N.Y.S.2d 883, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6629

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

DecidedJune 15, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 273 A.D.2d 101 (People v. Ince) 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. Ince, 273 A.D.2d 101, 710 N.Y.S.2d 883, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6629 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (George Daniels, J.), rendered December 15, 1998, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and bail jumping in the first and second degrees, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 5 to 11 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea was untimely, since the record establishes that it was made after the sentence was imposed (see, CPL 220.60 [3]). In any event, defendant’s asserted ground would not have been a valid basis for withdrawal of the plea. Defendant’s request was based entirely upon his dissatisfaction with his negotiated sentence. Accordingly, no further inquiry would have been necessary.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (George Daniels, J.), rendered December 15, 1998, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and bail jumping in the first and second degrees, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 5 to 11 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea was untimely, since the record establishes that it was made after the sentence was imposed (see, CPL 220.60 [3]). In any event, defendant’s asserted ground would not have been a valid basis for withdrawal of the plea. Defendant’s request was based entirely upon his dissatisfaction with his negotiated sentence. Accordingly, no further inquiry would have been necessary.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 101, 710 N.Y.S.2d 883, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ince-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack