People v. O'brien

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. O'brien

134 A.D.2d 376, 520 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50565

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

DecidedNovember 9, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 134 A.D.2d 376 (People v. O'brien) 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. O'brien, 134 A.D.2d 376, 520 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50565 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Goldstein, J.), rendered December 16, 1981, convicting him of robbery in [377]*377the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

A review of the record demonstrates that the plea allocution clearly established that the defendant was advised of the rights he would be waiving and that, after consulting with counsel, he knowingly and voluntarily chose to plead guilty (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9). The defendant admitted the underlying facts of the crime and acknowledged that he was pleading guilty because he was, in fact, guilty. The defendant’s belated, unsubstantiated claim of innocence did not render the plea either procedurally or substantively defective (see, People v Dixon, 29 NY2d 55; People v Stubbs, 110 AD2d 725; People v Kelsch, 96 AD2d 677). Under the circumstances present herein, the denial of the defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea was not an abuse of discretion (see, People v Dixon, supra, at 57).

Finally, as the defendant received the sentence for which he bargained, he may not now be heard to complain that it was excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Lawrence, Weinstein and Kunzeman, 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 Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Goldstein, J.), rendered December 16, 1981, convicting him of robbery in [377]*377the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

A review of the record demonstrates that the plea allocution clearly established that the defendant was advised of the rights he would be waiving and that, after consulting with counsel, he knowingly and voluntarily chose to plead guilty (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9). The defendant admitted the underlying facts of the crime and acknowledged that he was pleading guilty because he was, in fact, guilty. The defendant’s belated, unsubstantiated claim of innocence did not render the plea either procedurally or substantively defective (see, People v Dixon, 29 NY2d 55; People v Stubbs, 110 AD2d 725; People v Kelsch, 96 AD2d 677). Under the circumstances present herein, the denial of the defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea was not an abuse of discretion (see, People v Dixon, supra, at 57).

Finally, as the defendant received the sentence for which he bargained, he may not now be heard to complain that it was excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Lawrence, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.2d 376, 520 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50565, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-obrien-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack