People v. Lora

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lora

176 A.D.2d 273

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

DecidedSeptember 16, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 176 A.D.2d 273 (People v. Lora) 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. Lora, 176 A.D.2d 273 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (King, J.), rendered February 15, 1990, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

[274]*274Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered a plea of guilty under a negotiated plea agreement with the understanding that he was to receive the sentence imposed. Therefore, he may not now be heard to complain that the sentence was excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816).

Having previously denied the defendant’s application, for leave to appeal from the order denying his motion, pursuant to CPL 440.10, to vacate the judgment of conviction, his present challenge to that order on the same grounds is not properly before us. Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, 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 County Court, Dutchess County (King, J.), rendered February 15, 1990, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

[274]*274Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered a plea of guilty under a negotiated plea agreement with the understanding that he was to receive the sentence imposed. Therefore, he may not now be heard to complain that the sentence was excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816).

Having previously denied the defendant’s application, for leave to appeal from the order denying his motion, pursuant to CPL 440.10, to vacate the judgment of conviction, his present challenge to that order on the same grounds is not properly before us. Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 A.D.2d 273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lora-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack