People v. Orr

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Orr

111 A.D.2d 937, 491 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50212

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

DecidedJune 24, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 111 A.D.2d 937 (People v. Orr) 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. Orr, 111 A.D.2d 937, 491 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50212 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lane, J.), both rendered April 23,1984, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree under indictment No. 3200/83 and attempted robbery in the first degree under indictment No. 2760/82, upon his [938]*938pleas of guilty, and sentencing him to consecutive indeterminate terms of 8V2 to 25 years and IV2 to 4% years’ imprisonment, respectively.

Judgments affirmed.

On this appeal, the defendant contends that his pleas of guilty should be vacated because he was not advised at the taking of the pleas of his “Constitutional right to force the People to prove his guilt to a unanimous jury”. Having failed either to move to withdraw his plea on this ground prior to the imposition of sentence (see, CPL 220.60 [3]), or to vacate judgment pursuant to CPL 440.10, the defendant has not preserved the issue of the sufficiency of the plea allocution for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Claudio, 64 NY2d 858; People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636; People v Mattocks, 100 AD2d 944). Moreover, were we to review this issue in the interest of justice, vacatur would not be required because the allocution satisfied the requirements of People v Harris (61 NY2d 9).

There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that his consecutive sentences, which were imposed in accordance with the negotiated plea agreements (see, People v La Lande, 104 AD2d 1052; People v Nelson, 104 AD2d 1055; People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816), were unduly harsh or excessive. Moreover, we perceive no basis for modifying the sentences in the interest of justice (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano and Brown, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lane, J.), both rendered April 23,1984, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree under indictment No. 3200/83 and attempted robbery in the first degree under indictment No. 2760/82, upon his [938]*938pleas of guilty, and sentencing him to consecutive indeterminate terms of 8V2 to 25 years and IV2 to 4% years’ imprisonment, respectively.

Judgments affirmed.

On this appeal, the defendant contends that his pleas of guilty should be vacated because he was not advised at the taking of the pleas of his “Constitutional right to force the People to prove his guilt to a unanimous jury”. Having failed either to move to withdraw his plea on this ground prior to the imposition of sentence (see, CPL 220.60 [3]), or to vacate judgment pursuant to CPL 440.10, the defendant has not preserved the issue of the sufficiency of the plea allocution for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Claudio, 64 NY2d 858; People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636; People v Mattocks, 100 AD2d 944). Moreover, were we to review this issue in the interest of justice, vacatur would not be required because the allocution satisfied the requirements of People v Harris (61 NY2d 9).

There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that his consecutive sentences, which were imposed in accordance with the negotiated plea agreements (see, People v La Lande, 104 AD2d 1052; People v Nelson, 104 AD2d 1055; People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816), were unduly harsh or excessive. Moreover, we perceive no basis for modifying the sentences in the interest of justice (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A.D.2d 937, 491 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-orr-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack