People v. Pitt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pitt

264 A.D.2d 786, 696 N.Y.S.2d 415, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9163

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

DecidedSeptember 20, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 264 A.D.2d 786 (People v. Pitt) 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. Pitt, 264 A.D.2d 786, 696 N.Y.S.2d 415, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9163 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County [787]*787(Corso, J.), rendered September 21, 1998, convicting her of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that the court erred in failing to conduct a mental competency hearing (see, CPL 730.30; see, People v Morgan, 87 NY2d 878; People v Arm-lin, 37 NY2d 167, 171; People v Lucci, 250 AD2d 780). Moreover, the record reveals that the defendant’s plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9). In addition, contrary to her contention, the defendant received effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137). The defendant’s attorney negotiated an advantageous plea agreement that substantially limited her exposure to imprisonment (see, People v Mobley, 221 AD2d 376; People v Williams, 221 AD2d 674). Santucci, J. P., Krausman, Florio and H. Miller, 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 County Court, Suffolk County [787]*787(Corso, J.), rendered September 21, 1998, convicting her of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that the court erred in failing to conduct a mental competency hearing (see, CPL 730.30; see, People v Morgan, 87 NY2d 878; People v Arm-lin, 37 NY2d 167, 171; People v Lucci, 250 AD2d 780). Moreover, the record reveals that the defendant’s plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9). In addition, contrary to her contention, the defendant received effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137). The defendant’s attorney negotiated an advantageous plea agreement that substantially limited her exposure to imprisonment (see, People v Mobley, 221 AD2d 376; People v Williams, 221 AD2d 674). Santucci, J. P., Krausman, Florio and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 786, 696 N.Y.S.2d 415, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pitt-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack