People v. Petty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Petty

222 A.D.2d 1106, 636 N.Y.S.2d 688, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14213

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

DecidedDecember 22, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 222 A.D.2d 1106 (People v. Petty) 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. Petty, 222 A.D.2d 1106, 636 N.Y.S.2d 688, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14213 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Having failed to move to withdraw his plea (see, CPL 220.60 [3]) or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see, CPL 440.10), defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the sufficiency of the plea allocution (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666; People v Tranka, 191 AD2d 903, lv denied 81 NY2d 1021). Further, the record of the plea allocution shows that defendant’s factual recitation did not "negate! ] an essential element of the crime pleaded to”, or otherwise "clearly cast! ] significant doubt upon the defendant’s guilt” (People v Lopez, supra, at 666; cf., People v Beasley, 25 NY2d 483; People v Serrano, 15 NY2d 304).

In light of defendant’s extensive prior criminal history, we conclude that the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Cayuga County Court, Corning, J.— Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present— Denman, P. J., Pine, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Having failed to move to withdraw his plea (see, CPL 220.60 [3]) or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see, CPL 440.10), defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the sufficiency of the plea allocution (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666; People v Tranka, 191 AD2d 903, lv denied 81 NY2d 1021). Further, the record of the plea allocution shows that defendant’s factual recitation did not "negate! ] an essential element of the crime pleaded to”, or otherwise "clearly cast! ] significant doubt upon the defendant’s guilt” (People v Lopez, supra, at 666; cf., People v Beasley, 25 NY2d 483; People v Serrano, 15 NY2d 304).

In light of defendant’s extensive prior criminal history, we conclude that the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Cayuga County Court, Corning, J.— Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present— Denman, P. J., Pine, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 1106, 636 N.Y.S.2d 688, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-petty-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack