People v. Martes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Martes

154 A.D.2d 946, 545 N.Y.S.2d 885, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13097

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

DecidedOctober 6, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 154 A.D.2d 946 (People v. Martes) 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. Martes, 154 A.D.2d 946, 545 N.Y.S.2d 885, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13097 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s contention that his guilty plea to the lesser crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance was not voluntarily and knowingly made because of his unfamiliarity with the English language is without merit in view of the fact that the plea minutes indicate that an interpreter was present and assisted defendant throughout the entire proceeding (see, People v Quezada, 145 AD2d 950, 951; People v Herrera, 107 AD2d 1040). The record establishes that defendant’s guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered (see, People v Francis, 38 NY2d 150; People v Nixon, 21 NY2d 338, 353, cert denied sub nom. Robinson v New York, 393 US 1067). (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J. — criminal possession of controlled substance, second degree.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s contention that his guilty plea to the lesser crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance was not voluntarily and knowingly made because of his unfamiliarity with the English language is without merit in view of the fact that the plea minutes indicate that an interpreter was present and assisted defendant throughout the entire proceeding (see, People v Quezada, 145 AD2d 950, 951; People v Herrera, 107 AD2d 1040). The record establishes that defendant’s guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered (see, People v Francis, 38 NY2d 150; People v Nixon, 21 NY2d 338, 353, cert denied sub nom. Robinson v New York, 393 US 1067). (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J. — criminal possession of controlled substance, second degree.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 A.D.2d 946, 545 N.Y.S.2d 885, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13097, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-martes-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack