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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 28, 1997·Published·Cited by 7 cases

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.

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

238 A.D.2d 607 (People v. Lu Yang Tong) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related