People v. Merrifield

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Merrifield

266 A.D.2d 922, 698 N.Y.S.2d 181, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11745

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 12, 1999·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that the plea colloquy is insufficient because County Court failed to advise him of his privilege against compulsory self-incrimination or his constitutional right to confront his accusers (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 16-19). The record establishes that defendant’s guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered (see, People v Harris, supra, at 19-21). (Appeal from Judgment of Jefferson County Court, Clary, J. — Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 5th Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Pigott, Jr., Hurl-butt and Callahan, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that the plea colloquy is insufficient because County Court failed to advise him of his privilege against compulsory self-incrimination or his constitutional right to confront his accusers (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 16-19). The record establishes that defendant’s guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered (see, People v Harris, supra, at 19-21). (Appeal from Judgment of Jefferson County Court, Clary, J. — Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 5th Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Pigott, Jr., Hurl-butt and Callahan, JJ.

People v. Merrifield, 266 A.D.2d 922, 698 N.Y.S.2d 181, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11745 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

266 A.D.2d 922 (People v. Merrifield) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related