People v. Key

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Key

90 A.D.3d 677, 933 N.Y.2d 900

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

DecidedDecember 6, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 90 A.D.3d 677 (People v. Key) 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. Key, 90 A.D.3d 677, 933 N.Y.2d 900 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant’s claims pertaining to the grand jury presentation were forfeited by his plea of guilty (see People v Crumpler, 70 AD3d 1396, 1397 [2010]; People v Martin, 55 AD3d 1236, 1238 [2008]; People v Greeman, 49 AD3d 463, 464 [2008]; People v Winchester, 38 AD3d 1336, 1337 [2007]; People v Santiago, 305 AD2d 1109, 1110 [2003]; People v Sachs, 280 AD2d 966, 967 [2001]; People v Butler, 198 AD2d 427 [1993]; People v Quackenbush, 98 AD2d 875 [1983]). Furthermore, the County Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty (see CPL 220.60 [3]; People v Meyers, 204 AD2d 492 [1994]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]; People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816 [1984]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Florio, J.E, Balkin, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

The defendant’s claims pertaining to the grand jury presentation were forfeited by his plea of guilty (see People v Crumpler, 70 AD3d 1396, 1397 [2010]; People v Martin, 55 AD3d 1236, 1238 [2008]; People v Greeman, 49 AD3d 463, 464 [2008]; People v Winchester, 38 AD3d 1336, 1337 [2007]; People v Santiago, 305 AD2d 1109, 1110 [2003]; People v Sachs, 280 AD2d 966, 967 [2001]; People v Butler, 198 AD2d 427 [1993]; People v Quackenbush, 98 AD2d 875 [1983]). Furthermore, the County Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty (see CPL 220.60 [3]; People v Meyers, 204 AD2d 492 [1994]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]; People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816 [1984]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Florio, J.E, Balkin, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 A.D.3d 677, 933 N.Y.2d 900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-key-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack