People v. Kwok

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Kwok

257 A.D.2d 402, 682 N.Y.S.2d 577, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 68

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

DecidedJanuary 7, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 257 A.D.2d 402 (People v. Kwok) 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. Kwok, 257 A.D.2d 402, 682 N.Y.S.2d 577, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 68 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Franklin Weissberg, J.), rendered June 25, 1996, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 33A to 7V2 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim regarding the factual sufficiency of the indictment is waived by his guilty plea and is unpreserved (see, People v Iannone, 45 NY2d 589, 600-601). His claim regarding the factual sufficiency of his allocution is unpreserved since he failed to object at sentencing and did not move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725; People v Teddy, 227 AD2d 182). Defendant’s allocution, in which he acknowledged every element of the crime, did not cast significant doubt on his guilt.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Williams 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 (Franklin Weissberg, J.), rendered June 25, 1996, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 33A to 7V2 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim regarding the factual sufficiency of the indictment is waived by his guilty plea and is unpreserved (see, People v Iannone, 45 NY2d 589, 600-601). His claim regarding the factual sufficiency of his allocution is unpreserved since he failed to object at sentencing and did not move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725; People v Teddy, 227 AD2d 182). Defendant’s allocution, in which he acknowledged every element of the crime, did not cast significant doubt on his guilt.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Williams and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D.2d 402, 682 N.Y.S.2d 577, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 68, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-kwok-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack