People v. Montez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Montez

111 A.D.2d 877, 491 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50143

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

DecidedJune 17, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 111 A.D.2d 877 (People v. Montez) 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. Montez, 111 A.D.2d 877, 491 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50143 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leahy, J.), rendered November 29,1982, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

By failing to move to withdraw his guilty plea, defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review the issue of the sufficiency of the allocution (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636; People v Lawrence, 100 AD2d 944; People v Mattocks, 100 AD2d 944) and review in the interest of justice is not warranted. Moreover, the defendant, “by pleading guilty prior to a decision on his suppression motion, waived final determination of the motion, and thus failed to preserve any suppression issue for appellate review” (People v Corti, 88 AD2d 345,347). Defendant’s claims of ineffectiveness of counsel require the making of an additional record, and should be determined by way of a collateral or postconviction proceeding pursuant to CPL 440.10 (see, People v Lawrence, supra; People v Drummond, 99 AD2d 760). Finally, we note that inasmuch as defendant received the sentence for which he bargained, he has no basis to complain that the sentence was excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, O’Connor and Brown, 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, Queens County (Leahy, J.), rendered November 29,1982, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

By failing to move to withdraw his guilty plea, defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review the issue of the sufficiency of the allocution (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636; People v Lawrence, 100 AD2d 944; People v Mattocks, 100 AD2d 944) and review in the interest of justice is not warranted. Moreover, the defendant, “by pleading guilty prior to a decision on his suppression motion, waived final determination of the motion, and thus failed to preserve any suppression issue for appellate review” (People v Corti, 88 AD2d 345,347). Defendant’s claims of ineffectiveness of counsel require the making of an additional record, and should be determined by way of a collateral or postconviction proceeding pursuant to CPL 440.10 (see, People v Lawrence, supra; People v Drummond, 99 AD2d 760). Finally, we note that inasmuch as defendant received the sentence for which he bargained, he has no basis to complain that the sentence was excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, O’Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A.D.2d 877, 491 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-montez-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack