People v. McCoy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McCoy

105 A.D.2d 808, 481 N.Y.S.2d 745, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20927

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 105 A.D.2d 808 (People v. McCoy) 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. McCoy, 105 A.D.2d 808, 481 N.Y.S.2d 745, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20927 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ryan, J.), both rendered December 1,1981, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Judgments affirmed.

Since defendant did not seek to withdraw his plea prior to the time of sentencing, he has not, as a matter of law, preserved any claim that the allocution at the time of his pleas was insufficient (People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636; People v Pascale, 48 NY2d 997; People v McKenzie, 88 AD2d 646), and based upon this court’s review of the record, reversal in the interest of justice is unwarranted (see People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9; People v Fernandez, 91 AD2d 1073). Weinstein, J. P., Brown, Boyers and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ryan, J.), both rendered December 1,1981, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Judgments affirmed.

Since defendant did not seek to withdraw his plea prior to the time of sentencing, he has not, as a matter of law, preserved any claim that the allocution at the time of his pleas was insufficient (People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636; People v Pascale, 48 NY2d 997; People v McKenzie, 88 AD2d 646), and based upon this court’s review of the record, reversal in the interest of justice is unwarranted (see People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9; People v Fernandez, 91 AD2d 1073). Weinstein, J. P., Brown, Boyers and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 A.D.2d 808, 481 N.Y.S.2d 745, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20927, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mccoy-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack