People v. Nunez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Nunez

18 A.D.3d 289, 794 N.Y.S.2d 646

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

DecidedMay 17, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.3d 289 (People v. Nunez) 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. Nunez, 18 A.D.3d 289, 794 N.Y.S.2d 646 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J.), rendered January 14, 2003, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the first degree and two counts of burglary in the second degree, and sentencing [290]*290him to a term of 6 years consecutive to two concurrent terms of 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea (see People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520 [1978]). Defendant made no effort to elaborate on his conclusory assertion of innocence, which was contradicted by the plea allocution record. Therefore, the court was not obligated to make any inquiry.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Buckley, EJ., Marlow, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J.), rendered January 14, 2003, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the first degree and two counts of burglary in the second degree, and sentencing [290]*290him to a term of 6 years consecutive to two concurrent terms of 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea (see People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520 [1978]). Defendant made no effort to elaborate on his conclusory assertion of innocence, which was contradicted by the plea allocution record. Therefore, the court was not obligated to make any inquiry.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Buckley, EJ., Marlow, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 289, 794 N.Y.S.2d 646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-nunez-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack