People v. Perry M.
This text of 110 A.D.2d 718 (People v. Perry M.) 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.
Opinion
Defendant’s claim regarding the sufficiency of the plea allocution is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636; People v De Santis, 108 AD2d 821; People v Mattocks, 100 AD2d 944). Moreover, reversal is not warranted in the interest of justice because the record establishes that defendant knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9; People v Carrisquello, 106 AD2d 513). Nor do we perceive any basis for concluding that the sentence, which was the product of a negotiated plea, requires modification in the interest of justice (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Thompson and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
110 A.D.2d 718, 488 N.Y.S.2d 31, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-perry-m-nyappdiv-1985.