People v. McVay

148 A.D.2d 474, 538 N.Y.S.2d 622, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2402
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 6, 1989
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 148 A.D.2d 474 (People v. McVay) 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. McVay, 148 A.D.2d 474, 538 N.Y.S.2d 622, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2402 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Namm, J.), rendered September 30, 1987, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree and assault in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Having failed to move prior to the imposition of sentence to withdraw his plea, the defendant has not preserved for appellate review his challenge to the sufficiency of the plea allocution (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636). Nor is reversal warranted in the interest of justice. A defendant who accepts a bargained-for plea to a lesser offense than that charged in the indictment may not challenge the factual basis for the plea (see, People v Pelchat, 62 NY2d 97, 108; People v Clair-borne, 29 NY2d 950). Thus, the defendant’s claim that his factual recitation was legally insufficient is precluded. In any event, the record amply demonstrates that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered his guilty plea, and there is no suggestion that the plea was improvident or baseless (see, People v Caban, 131 AD2d 863). The court’s inquiry fully comported with the requirements of People v Harris (61 NY2d 9). Furthermore, the defendant pleaded guilty with the full understanding that he would receive the sentence that was actually imposed. Thus, he will not now be heard to complain that his sentence was excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Fiber, Spatt and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Carruthers
227 A.D.2d 500 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
People v. Brady
220 A.D.2d 760 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
People v. Young
191 A.D.2d 605 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
People v. Menard
187 A.D.2d 458 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
People v. Forster
186 A.D.2d 817 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
People v. Johnson
186 A.D.2d 822 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
People v. Gee
185 A.D.2d 244 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
People v. Garcia
180 A.D.2d 815 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
People v. Crespo
178 A.D.2d 650 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
People v. Madera
178 A.D.2d 440 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
People v. McMillan
177 A.D.2d 718 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
People v. Aloisi
177 A.D.2d 491 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
People v. Frazier
171 A.D.2d 809 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
People v. Ramon
165 A.D.2d 887 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
148 A.D.2d 474, 538 N.Y.S.2d 622, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcvay-nyappdiv-1989.