People v. Martinez

158 A.D.2d 623, 551 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2007
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Martinez. Read the opinion of the Court — 133 A.D.2d 572

Opinion

The defendant’s pro se contentions that he did not fully understand the plea proceedings and that his trial counsel coerced him into pleading guilty are clearly refuted by the record. Indeed, the minutes of the plea proceedings demonstrate that the defendant’s plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered and that he expressed satisfaction with counsel’s representation (see, People v Moore, 156 AD2d 395). Moreover, the record establishes that the defendant received meaningful representation of counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137).

[624]*624Additionally, the defendant’s challenge to the sentence he received is unavailing, inasmuch as it is neither unduly harsh nor excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80) and was imposed pursuant to a bargained-for plea arrangement to which the defendant consented (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Sullivan, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Martinez, 158 A.D.2d 623, 551 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2007 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

158 A.D.2d 623 (People v. Martinez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Baldi
429 N.E.2d 400 (New York Court of Appeals, 1981)
People v. Suitte
90 A.D.2d 80 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
People v. Kazepis
101 A.D.2d 816 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
People v. Moore
156 A.D.2d 395 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)