People v. Legrett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Legrett

48 A.D.3d 1111, 849 N.Y.S.2d 856

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 48 A.D.3d 1111 (People v. Legrett) 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. Legrett, 48 A.D.3d 1111, 849 N.Y.S.2d 856 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (Frederick G. Reed, J.), rendered August 4, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the second degree and petit larceny.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]) and petit larceny (§ 155.25). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution inasmuch as he failed to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]; People v Emm, 23 AD3d 983, 984 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 775 [2006]), and this case does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666). Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Lunn, Green and Gorski, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (Frederick G. Reed, J.), rendered August 4, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the second degree and petit larceny.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]) and petit larceny (§ 155.25). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution inasmuch as he failed to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]; People v Emm, 23 AD3d 983, 984 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 775 [2006]), and this case does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666). Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Lunn, Green and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.3d 1111, 849 N.Y.S.2d 856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-legrett-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack