People v. McGovern

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McGovern

265 A.D.2d 881, 696 N.Y.S.2d 730, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9987

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

DecidedOctober 1, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 881 (People v. McGovern) 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. McGovern, 265 A.D.2d 881, 696 N.Y.S.2d 730, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9987 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of two counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.25) and one count of attempted grand larceny in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 155.35). By failing to move to withdraw his guilty plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the sufficiency of the plea allocution (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665). We reject defendant’s contention that this is one of those “rare case” exceptions to the preservation rule (People v Lopez, supra, at 666; see, People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726, rearg denied 86 NY2d 839). We also reject defendant’s contention that the sentence is unduly harsh or severe. Defendant was sentenced in accordance with the plea bargain and should be bound by its terms (see, People v Zelke, 203 AD2d 909, lv denied 83 NY2d 973). (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Harvey, J. — Criminal Possession Forged Instrument, 2nd Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Balio, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of two counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.25) and one count of attempted grand larceny in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 155.35). By failing to move to withdraw his guilty plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the sufficiency of the plea allocution (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665). We reject defendant’s contention that this is one of those “rare case” exceptions to the preservation rule (People v Lopez, supra, at 666; see, People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726, rearg denied 86 NY2d 839). We also reject defendant’s contention that the sentence is unduly harsh or severe. Defendant was sentenced in accordance with the plea bargain and should be bound by its terms (see, People v Zelke, 203 AD2d 909, lv denied 83 NY2d 973). (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Harvey, J. — Criminal Possession Forged Instrument, 2nd Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 881, 696 N.Y.S.2d 730, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9987, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcgovern-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack