People v. Ostrander

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ostrander

136 A.D.2d 760, 523 N.Y.S.2d 219, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 36

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

DecidedJanuary 7, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 136 A.D.2d 760 (People v. Ostrander) 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. Ostrander, 136 A.D.2d 760, 523 N.Y.S.2d 219, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 36 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Levine, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County (Hanofee, J.), rendered June 4, 1985, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of robbery in the first degree.

Defendant’s first contention on appeal is that his guilty plea should not have been accepted by County Court since he was [761]*761incapacitated by pain and/or pain-killing medication at the time of the plea. Defendant failed to preserve this issue for appellate review by moving either to withdraw the plea before sentencing or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see, People v Claudio, 64 NY2d 858). In any event, defendant’s contention that he was incapable of entering into a valid plea is belied by the record of the plea allocution which shows that defendant was questioned concerning his medication and ability to understand what was going on. His responses to these questions clearly indicated that his faculties were unimpaired and, hence, County Court did not err in accepting the plea (see, People v Bangert, 107 AD2d 752, 753).

Defendant’s second contention on appeal, that his sentence of 5 to 15 years’ imprisonment is harsh and excessive, is also rejected.

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.

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

Levine, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County (Hanofee, J.), rendered June 4, 1985, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of robbery in the first degree.

Defendant’s first contention on appeal is that his guilty plea should not have been accepted by County Court since he was [761]*761incapacitated by pain and/or pain-killing medication at the time of the plea. Defendant failed to preserve this issue for appellate review by moving either to withdraw the plea before sentencing or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see, People v Claudio, 64 NY2d 858). In any event, defendant’s contention that he was incapable of entering into a valid plea is belied by the record of the plea allocution which shows that defendant was questioned concerning his medication and ability to understand what was going on. His responses to these questions clearly indicated that his faculties were unimpaired and, hence, County Court did not err in accepting the plea (see, People v Bangert, 107 AD2d 752, 753).

Defendant’s second contention on appeal, that his sentence of 5 to 15 years’ imprisonment is harsh and excessive, is also rejected.

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 A.D.2d 760, 523 N.Y.S.2d 219, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 36, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ostrander-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack