People v. Pitt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pitt

279 A.D.2d 419, 720 N.Y.S.2d 67, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 910

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

DecidedJanuary 30, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 279 A.D.2d 419 (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, 279 A.D.2d 419, 720 N.Y.S.2d 67, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 910 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Mary McGowan Davis, J.), rendered May 13, 1998, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant received meaningful representation in connection with his plea and sentence (see, People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714; People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404). The court was under no obligation to appoint new counsel when defendant’s attorney informed the court that defendant purportedly wished to make an application to withdraw his plea, and that such application was without legal foundation. Defendant did not, in [420]*420fact, move to withdraw his plea, but instead made a supplication for leniency, and there is nothing in the existing record to indicate that defendant wished to offer any legal basis for vacatur of the plea. In any event, the record establishes the voluntariness of the plea and the propriety of the court’s enhancement of sentence for defendant’s violation of two conditions of his plea agreement (see, People v Figgins, 87 NY2d 840).

We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence.

Defendant’s remaining contentions, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief, are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Andrias, Wallach, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Mary McGowan Davis, J.), rendered May 13, 1998, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant received meaningful representation in connection with his plea and sentence (see, People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714; People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404). The court was under no obligation to appoint new counsel when defendant’s attorney informed the court that defendant purportedly wished to make an application to withdraw his plea, and that such application was without legal foundation. Defendant did not, in [420]*420fact, move to withdraw his plea, but instead made a supplication for leniency, and there is nothing in the existing record to indicate that defendant wished to offer any legal basis for vacatur of the plea. In any event, the record establishes the voluntariness of the plea and the propriety of the court’s enhancement of sentence for defendant’s violation of two conditions of his plea agreement (see, People v Figgins, 87 NY2d 840).

We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence.

Defendant’s remaining contentions, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief, are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Andrias, Wallach, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 419, 720 N.Y.S.2d 67, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pitt-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack