People v. Nitzke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Nitzke

152 A.D.2d 815, 544 N.Y.S.2d 505, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9419

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

DecidedJuly 13, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 152 A.D.2d 815 (People v. Nitzke) 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. Nitzke, 152 A.D.2d 815, 544 N.Y.S.2d 505, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9419 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Mahoney, P. J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Madison County (Humphreys, J.), rendered January 4, 1988, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of burglary in the third degree and petit larceny.

By pleading guilty to burglary in the third degree and petit larceny, the crimes for which he was indicted, defendant waived any right to appellate review of his contentions that County Court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment in furtherance of justice pursuant to CPL 210.40 (1) (c) (see, People v Persico, 131 AD2d 603, lv denied 70 NY2d 716) and in resolving his Sandoval motion (see, People v Emerson, 141 AD2d 924). Since there is no suggestion that the plea was in any way improper, the judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.

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

Mahoney, P. J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Madison County (Humphreys, J.), rendered January 4, 1988, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of burglary in the third degree and petit larceny.

By pleading guilty to burglary in the third degree and petit larceny, the crimes for which he was indicted, defendant waived any right to appellate review of his contentions that County Court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment in furtherance of justice pursuant to CPL 210.40 (1) (c) (see, People v Persico, 131 AD2d 603, lv denied 70 NY2d 716) and in resolving his Sandoval motion (see, People v Emerson, 141 AD2d 924). Since there is no suggestion that the plea was in any way improper, the judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 A.D.2d 815, 544 N.Y.S.2d 505, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-nitzke-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack