People v. Mulero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mulero

115 A.D.2d 569, 496 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54986

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

DecidedDecember 9, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 115 A.D.2d 569 (People v. Mulero) 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. Mulero, 115 A.D.2d 569, 496 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54986 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Dwyer, J.), rendered October 7, 1981, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree (two counts), criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and manufacture, transport, disposition and defacement of weapons and dangerous instruments and appliances, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Amended judgment affirmed.

Defendant’s contention that the amended judgment under review should be reversed based upon his arguments raised on an earlier appeal from his conviction on a related indictment is without merit. While one condition of the instant plea agreement was that defendant would be entitled to vacate his plea if the conviction in the related case were reversed on appeal, that conviction was, in fact, affirmed (People v Mulero, 103 AD2d 1047, lv denied 63 NY2d 948). Moreover, to the extent that any of the arguments raised on the prior appeal have any bearing upon this matter, they are without merit. Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Brown, Niehoff and Fiber, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Dwyer, J.), rendered October 7, 1981, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree (two counts), criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and manufacture, transport, disposition and defacement of weapons and dangerous instruments and appliances, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Amended judgment affirmed.

Defendant’s contention that the amended judgment under review should be reversed based upon his arguments raised on an earlier appeal from his conviction on a related indictment is without merit. While one condition of the instant plea agreement was that defendant would be entitled to vacate his plea if the conviction in the related case were reversed on appeal, that conviction was, in fact, affirmed (People v Mulero, 103 AD2d 1047, lv denied 63 NY2d 948). Moreover, to the extent that any of the arguments raised on the prior appeal have any bearing upon this matter, they are without merit. Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Brown, Niehoff and Fiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.2d 569, 496 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54986, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mulero-nyappdiv-1985.