People v. Litchmore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Litchmore

116 A.D.3d 884, 983 N.Y.S.2d 440

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

DecidedApril 16, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 116 A.D.3d 884 (People v. Litchmore) 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. Litchmore, 116 A.D.3d 884, 983 N.Y.S.2d 440 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered February 8, 2011, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (three counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that his plea was not knowing and voluntary is unpreserved for appellate review, since he failed to move to withdraw his plea (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Johnson, 73 AD3d 951 [2010]; People v Vasquez, 40 AD3d 1134 [2007]; People v Wilson, 37 AD3d 744, 745 [2007]). In any event, the record of the plea proceeding establishes that the plea was knowing and voluntary (see People v Elcine, 43 AD3d 1176, 1177 [2007]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Mastro, J.E, Balkin, Sgroi and LaSalle, 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 (Tomei, J.), rendered February 8, 2011, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (three counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that his plea was not knowing and voluntary is unpreserved for appellate review, since he failed to move to withdraw his plea (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Johnson, 73 AD3d 951 [2010]; People v Vasquez, 40 AD3d 1134 [2007]; People v Wilson, 37 AD3d 744, 745 [2007]). In any event, the record of the plea proceeding establishes that the plea was knowing and voluntary (see People v Elcine, 43 AD3d 1176, 1177 [2007]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Mastro, J.E, Balkin, Sgroi and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.3d 884, 983 N.Y.S.2d 440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-litchmore-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack