People v. Murdock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Murdock

198 A.D.2d 446, 605 N.Y.S.2d 908

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

DecidedNovember 22, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 198 A.D.2d 446 (People v. Murdock) 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. Murdock, 198 A.D.2d 446, 605 N.Y.S.2d 908 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Tisch, J.), rendered April 1, 1993, convicting him of burglary in the third degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the court improperly refused to sentence him pursuant to a plea bargaining agreement since it did not sufficiently determine whether he had failed to comply with a condition previously imposed by the court. However, the defendant was given an opportunity to address the court and he raised no question about his failure to comply with the condition. Accordingly, the trial court properly imposed sentence (see, People v Ayers, 192 AD2d 1134).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Eiber, O’Brien and Pizzuto, 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 County Court, Suffolk County (Tisch, J.), rendered April 1, 1993, convicting him of burglary in the third degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the court improperly refused to sentence him pursuant to a plea bargaining agreement since it did not sufficiently determine whether he had failed to comply with a condition previously imposed by the court. However, the defendant was given an opportunity to address the court and he raised no question about his failure to comply with the condition. Accordingly, the trial court properly imposed sentence (see, People v Ayers, 192 AD2d 1134).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Eiber, O’Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 446, 605 N.Y.S.2d 908, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-murdock-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack