People v. Lu Yang Tong

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lu Yang Tong

238 A.D.2d 607, 657 N.Y.S.2d 960, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4376

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

DecidedApril 28, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 238 A.D.2d 607 (People v. Lu Yang Tong) 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. Lu Yang Tong, 238 A.D.2d 607, 657 N.Y.S.2d 960, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4376 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), rendered June 20, 1995, convicting him of assault in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that his guilty plea should be set aside because a language barrier inhibited his understanding of the proceedings. However, to the extent that the defendant claims that he did not understand the plea allocution because of his inability to speak English, his claims are unpreserved for appellate review in the absence of a motion to withdraw his plea (see, People v Marrero, 162 AD2d 419; People v Looney, 111 AD2d 934; see also, People v Valdivia, 198 AD2d 246). The defendant’s contentions that his plea should be vacated due to ineffective assistance of counsel are likewise unpreserved for appellate review in the absence of a motion to withdraw his plea pursuant to CPL 220.60 (People v Sierre, 173 AD2d 211).

In any event, the record belies the defendant’s contentions. His plea, following a detailed allocution through an interpreter, was clearly knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Thompson and Friedmann, 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, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), rendered June 20, 1995, convicting him of assault in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that his guilty plea should be set aside because a language barrier inhibited his understanding of the proceedings. However, to the extent that the defendant claims that he did not understand the plea allocution because of his inability to speak English, his claims are unpreserved for appellate review in the absence of a motion to withdraw his plea (see, People v Marrero, 162 AD2d 419; People v Looney, 111 AD2d 934; see also, People v Valdivia, 198 AD2d 246). The defendant’s contentions that his plea should be vacated due to ineffective assistance of counsel are likewise unpreserved for appellate review in the absence of a motion to withdraw his plea pursuant to CPL 220.60 (People v Sierre, 173 AD2d 211).

In any event, the record belies the defendant’s contentions. His plea, following a detailed allocution through an interpreter, was clearly knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Thompson and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 607, 657 N.Y.S.2d 960, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lu-yang-tong-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack