People v. Maldanado

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Maldanado

134 A.D.2d 526, 521 N.Y.S.2d 398, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50723

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

DecidedNovember 23, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 134 A.D.2d 526 (People v. Maldanado) 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. Maldanado, 134 A.D.2d 526, 521 N.Y.S.2d 398, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50723 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County [527]*527(Lane, J.), both rendered June 15, 1984, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts; one as to each indictment), upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant’s allegations regarding his counsel’s failure to investigate his case and advise him of his constitutional rights are not supported by the record before this court and are more properly the subject of a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10.

The defendant did not assert his objection to the adequacy of the plea allocutions in the court of first instance and therefore failed, as a matter of law, to preserve his claim for appellate review (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636). In any event, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the factual allocutions for the charged crimes were legally sufficient and were not the product of coercion by the court. Significantly, during the plea allocutions, the defendant specifically stated that he was pleading guilty because he was in fact guilty.

Finally, the imposed sentences, which were negotiated for by the defendant, were neither harsh nor excessive and did not constitute an abuse of discretion (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Rubin, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County [527]*527(Lane, J.), both rendered June 15, 1984, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts; one as to each indictment), upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant’s allegations regarding his counsel’s failure to investigate his case and advise him of his constitutional rights are not supported by the record before this court and are more properly the subject of a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10.

The defendant did not assert his objection to the adequacy of the plea allocutions in the court of first instance and therefore failed, as a matter of law, to preserve his claim for appellate review (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636). In any event, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the factual allocutions for the charged crimes were legally sufficient and were not the product of coercion by the court. Significantly, during the plea allocutions, the defendant specifically stated that he was pleading guilty because he was in fact guilty.

Finally, the imposed sentences, which were negotiated for by the defendant, were neither harsh nor excessive and did not constitute an abuse of discretion (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Rubin, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.2d 526, 521 N.Y.S.2d 398, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-maldanado-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack