People v. Mills

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mills

223 A.D.2d 562, 636 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 169

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

DecidedJanuary 8, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 223 A.D.2d 562 (People v. Mills) 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. Mills, 223 A.D.2d 562, 636 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 169 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flaherty, J.), rendered November 1, 1994, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have examined the record and find that the defendant’s plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9). We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit (see, People v Machado, 181 AD2d 796; cf., People v Rozzell, 20 NY2d 712; People v Gonzalez, 171 AD2d 413). Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flaherty, J.), rendered November 1, 1994, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have examined the record and find that the defendant’s plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9). We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit (see, People v Machado, 181 AD2d 796; cf., People v Rozzell, 20 NY2d 712; People v Gonzalez, 171 AD2d 413). Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 A.D.2d 562, 636 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mills-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack