People v. Modica

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Modica

100 A.D.2d 559, 473 N.Y.S.2d 265, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17530

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

DecidedMarch 12, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 100 A.D.2d 559 (People v. Modica) 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. Modica, 100 A.D.2d 559, 473 N.Y.S.2d 265, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17530 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinions

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Smith, J.), rendered November 18, 1981, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. 1 Judgment affirmed. H Based upon a review of the record we find that the defendant’s plea of guilty was knowingly and intelligently made (see People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 18-19) and that it was not the product of coercion or duress (People v Lowrance, 41 NY2d 303; cf. People v Flowers, 30 NY2d 315, 317). Defendant, a second violent felony offender, is clearly “knowledgeable and criminally experienced” and is hardly “lacking in intellect or experience” (People v Nixon, 21 NY2d 338, 353, cert den sub nom. Robinson v New York, 393 US 1067). Hence “short shrift” was properly accorded his claims by the trial court (see People v Lowrance, supra, pp 304-305). Titone, J. P., Thompson and Boyers, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Smith, J.), rendered November 18, 1981, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. 1 Judgment affirmed. H Based upon a review of the record we find that the defendant’s plea of guilty was knowingly and intelligently made (see People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 18-19) and that it was not the product of coercion or duress (People v Lowrance, 41 NY2d 303; cf. People v Flowers, 30 NY2d 315, 317). Defendant, a second violent felony offender, is clearly “knowledgeable and criminally experienced” and is hardly “lacking in intellect or experience” (People v Nixon, 21 NY2d 338, 353, cert den sub nom. Robinson v New York, 393 US 1067). Hence “short shrift” was properly accorded his claims by the trial court (see People v Lowrance, supra, pp 304-305). Titone, J. P., Thompson and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 A.D.2d 559, 473 N.Y.S.2d 265, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-modica-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack