People v. Paul

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Paul

248 A.D.2d 1010, 670 N.Y.S.2d 153, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3102

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

DecidedMarch 13, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 1010 (People v. Paul) 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. Paul, 248 A.D.2d 1010, 670 N.Y.S.2d 153, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3102 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary. Moreover, because defendant did not move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, his contention that the plea allocution was insufficient has not been preserved for our review (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665-668; People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636, 637). This is not one of those “rare case[s]” in which defendant’s recitation of the facts underlying the crime “clearly casts significant doubt upon the defendant’s guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea” (People v Lopez, supra, at 666). We further conclude that defendant’s sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J. — Robbery, 2nd Degree.)

Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Callahan and Balio, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary. Moreover, because defendant did not move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, his contention that the plea allocution was insufficient has not been preserved for our review (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665-668; People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636, 637). This is not one of those “rare case[s]” in which defendant’s recitation of the facts underlying the crime “clearly casts significant doubt upon the defendant’s guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea” (People v Lopez, supra, at 666). We further conclude that defendant’s sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J. — Robbery, 2nd Degree.)

Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Callahan and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 1010, 670 N.Y.S.2d 153, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-paul-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack