People v. Martino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Martino

250 A.D.2d 382, 672 N.Y.S.2d 685, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5283

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

DecidedMay 5, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D.2d 382 (People v. Martino) 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. Martino, 250 A.D.2d 382, 672 N.Y.S.2d 685, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5283 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered August 3, 1995, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of IV2 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea was properly denied without a hearing. Defendant’s claim of duress is belied by the record, which reflects that the plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see, People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520). In this regard, we also note that counsel was not ineffective because of his refusal to join in defendant’s meritless pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea (see, People v Kelly, 232 AD2d 314).

Appellate review of defendant’s remaining claim of error is foreclosed by defendant’s guilty plea as well as by his waiver of the right to appeal. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Williams, Tom, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered August 3, 1995, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of IV2 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea was properly denied without a hearing. Defendant’s claim of duress is belied by the record, which reflects that the plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see, People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520). In this regard, we also note that counsel was not ineffective because of his refusal to join in defendant’s meritless pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea (see, People v Kelly, 232 AD2d 314).

Appellate review of defendant’s remaining claim of error is foreclosed by defendant’s guilty plea as well as by his waiver of the right to appeal. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Williams, Tom, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 382, 672 N.Y.S.2d 685, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-martino-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack