People v. Milks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Milks

186 A.D.2d 1075, 590 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11745

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

DecidedOctober 7, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 186 A.D.2d 1075 (People v. Milks) 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. Milks, 186 A.D.2d 1075, 590 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11745 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal unanimously dismissed. Memorandum: The record of the plea proceedings clearly establishes that defendant waived his right to appeal as a condition of a negotiated plea bargain and sentence (see, People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1; People v Ford, 176 AD2d 1224, lv denied 79 NY2d 947). Defendant’s guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered in the presence of counsel and only after the court had fully apprised defendant of the consequences of his plea (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9). Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defen[1076]*1076dant’s oral motion to withdraw his plea made at the time of sentencing (see, CPL 220.60 [3]). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolfgang, J. — Sodomy, 1st Degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Green, Balio, Fallon and Davis, JJ.

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

— Appeal unanimously dismissed. Memorandum: The record of the plea proceedings clearly establishes that defendant waived his right to appeal as a condition of a negotiated plea bargain and sentence (see, People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1; People v Ford, 176 AD2d 1224, lv denied 79 NY2d 947). Defendant’s guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered in the presence of counsel and only after the court had fully apprised defendant of the consequences of his plea (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9). Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defen[1076]*1076dant’s oral motion to withdraw his plea made at the time of sentencing (see, CPL 220.60 [3]). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolfgang, J. — Sodomy, 1st Degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Green, Balio, Fallon and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 1075, 590 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11745, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-milks-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack