People v. Ozual

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ozual

289 A.D.2d 342, 734 N.Y.S.2d 567, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11930

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

DecidedDecember 10, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 342 (People v. Ozual) 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. Ozual, 289 A.D.2d 342, 734 N.Y.S.2d 567, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11930 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kron, J.), rendered June 6, 2000, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his plea without making further inquiry into the merits of his claims. In fact, the defendant did not move to withdraw his plea. Moreover, his claim at sentencing that his plea was entered involuntarily is belied by the record (see, People v Charles, 256 AD2d 472). Under the facts of this case, it cannot be said that the defendant’s plea, as a matter of law, was unintelligent or involuntary and, therefore, constitutionally deficient (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9).

The defendant waived his right to appeal from the remaining issue raised (see, People v Allen, 82 NY2d 761). Bracken, P. J., Krausman, Luciano, Smith and Adams, 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, Queens County (Kron, J.), rendered June 6, 2000, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his plea without making further inquiry into the merits of his claims. In fact, the defendant did not move to withdraw his plea. Moreover, his claim at sentencing that his plea was entered involuntarily is belied by the record (see, People v Charles, 256 AD2d 472). Under the facts of this case, it cannot be said that the defendant’s plea, as a matter of law, was unintelligent or involuntary and, therefore, constitutionally deficient (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9).

The defendant waived his right to appeal from the remaining issue raised (see, People v Allen, 82 NY2d 761). Bracken, P. J., Krausman, Luciano, Smith and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 342, 734 N.Y.S.2d 567, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11930, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ozual-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack