People v. Marnell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Marnell

106 A.D.2d 906, 483 N.Y.S.2d 496, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21820

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

DecidedDecember 14, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 106 A.D.2d 906 (People v. Marnell) 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. Marnell, 106 A.D.2d 906, 483 N.Y.S.2d 496, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21820 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On defendant’s appeal from the judgment of conviction, we have examined all issues preserved for review and find them to be without merit. Any claimed deficiency in the plea allocution was not timely raised at County Court “by motion to vacate or otherwise” and thus is not preserved for review (People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636, 637; cf. People v Sobczak, 105 AD2d 1053). Were we to undertake review, we would hold on this record that defendant’s claim is without merit.

We note, however, that subsequent to the imposition of sentence, defendant moved pursuant to CPL 440.10 and 440.20 to set aside the judgment of conviction. There is no appeal before us from County Court’s order denying that motion. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J. — murder, second degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Hancock, Jr., Den-man, Boomer and O’Donnell, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On defendant’s appeal from the judgment of conviction, we have examined all issues preserved for review and find them to be without merit. Any claimed deficiency in the plea allocution was not timely raised at County Court “by motion to vacate or otherwise” and thus is not preserved for review (People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636, 637; cf. People v Sobczak, 105 AD2d 1053). Were we to undertake review, we would hold on this record that defendant’s claim is without merit.

We note, however, that subsequent to the imposition of sentence, defendant moved pursuant to CPL 440.10 and 440.20 to set aside the judgment of conviction. There is no appeal before us from County Court’s order denying that motion. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J. — murder, second degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Hancock, Jr., Den-man, Boomer and O’Donnell, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 A.D.2d 906, 483 N.Y.S.2d 496, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-marnell-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack