People v. Plummer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Plummer

122 A.D.2d 285, 505 N.Y.S.2d 190, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59630

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

DecidedJuly 28, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 122 A.D.2d 285 (People v. Plummer) 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. Plummer, 122 A.D.2d 285, 505 N.Y.S.2d 190, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59630 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.), both rendered April 12, 1984, convicting him of attempted rape in the first degree under indictment No. 2118/ 82, and attempted robbery in the first degree under indictment No. 2032/82, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Judgments affirmed.

By pleading guilty prior to the determination of his suppression motion, the defendant waived appellate review of all issues raised therein (see, People v Fernandez, 67 NY2d 686; People v Prescott, 66 NY2d 216, 219-220, cert denied — US —, 106 S Ct 1804; People v Bell, 110 AD2d 902; People v Querica, 106 AD2d 589; People v Corti, 88 AD2d 345). The challenge to the pleas has not been preserved by a motion to withdraw them or a motion to vacate the judgments (see, e.g., People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636; People v Pascale, 48 NY2d 997; People v Querica, supra). Moreover, since the plea allocutions complied with the basic requirements of People v Harris (61 NY2d 9), nothing in the present record persuades us that vacatur of the pleas is warranted in the interest of justice. Inasmuch as there has been no abuse of discretion and neither a failure to observe sentencing principles nor a need to substitute our discretion for that of the sentencing court, the defendant’s objection to the sentences imposed is without merit (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Weinstein, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.), both rendered April 12, 1984, convicting him of attempted rape in the first degree under indictment No. 2118/ 82, and attempted robbery in the first degree under indictment No. 2032/82, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Judgments affirmed.

By pleading guilty prior to the determination of his suppression motion, the defendant waived appellate review of all issues raised therein (see, People v Fernandez, 67 NY2d 686; People v Prescott, 66 NY2d 216, 219-220, cert denied — US —, 106 S Ct 1804; People v Bell, 110 AD2d 902; People v Querica, 106 AD2d 589; People v Corti, 88 AD2d 345). The challenge to the pleas has not been preserved by a motion to withdraw them or a motion to vacate the judgments (see, e.g., People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636; People v Pascale, 48 NY2d 997; People v Querica, supra). Moreover, since the plea allocutions complied with the basic requirements of People v Harris (61 NY2d 9), nothing in the present record persuades us that vacatur of the pleas is warranted in the interest of justice. Inasmuch as there has been no abuse of discretion and neither a failure to observe sentencing principles nor a need to substitute our discretion for that of the sentencing court, the defendant’s objection to the sentences imposed is without merit (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Weinstein, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 A.D.2d 285, 505 N.Y.S.2d 190, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-plummer-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack