People v. Prashad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Prashad

260 A.D.2d 507, 689 N.Y.S.2d 162, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3791

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

DecidedApril 12, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 260 A.D.2d 507 (People v. Prashad) 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. Prashad, 260 A.D.2d 507, 689 N.Y.S.2d 162, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3791 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.), rendered June 25, 1996, convicting him of conspiracy in the fourth degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant did not move to withdraw his plea of guilty. Therefore, he has failed to preserve for appellate review his current claim that the court should not have accepted his plea (see, e.g., People v Pascole, 48 NY2d 997, 998). In any event, the record does not support the defendant’s belated assertion that his plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Although the defendant claimed, immediately before sentence was imposed, that he had not been “in the right sense of mind” when he plotted with an undercover police officer to strike the knees of his wife and his sister-in-law with a baseball bat, that did not negate any of the elements of the crimes to which he had allocuted, nor did he recite a viable defense (see, e.g., People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 17; People v Nixon, 21 NY2d 338, 350, cert denied sub nom. Robinson v New York, 393 US 1067; People v Rhodes, 176 AD2d 828, 829). Moreover, the defendant was experienced in the ways of the criminal justice system (see, e.g., People v Corso, 183 AD2d 774, 775), and was transparently endeavoring to manipulate the court into imposing a lesser sentence than the one he had negotiated for, as he had recently done before the same court in the context of a separate plea agreement regarding another felony that he had committed against his wife (cf., People v Polanco, 96 AD2d 910; People v Valente, 77 AD2d 917; People v Quiles, 72 AD2d 610). S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Luciano, 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 Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.), rendered June 25, 1996, convicting him of conspiracy in the fourth degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant did not move to withdraw his plea of guilty. Therefore, he has failed to preserve for appellate review his current claim that the court should not have accepted his plea (see, e.g., People v Pascole, 48 NY2d 997, 998). In any event, the record does not support the defendant’s belated assertion that his plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Although the defendant claimed, immediately before sentence was imposed, that he had not been “in the right sense of mind” when he plotted with an undercover police officer to strike the knees of his wife and his sister-in-law with a baseball bat, that did not negate any of the elements of the crimes to which he had allocuted, nor did he recite a viable defense (see, e.g., People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 17; People v Nixon, 21 NY2d 338, 350, cert denied sub nom. Robinson v New York, 393 US 1067; People v Rhodes, 176 AD2d 828, 829). Moreover, the defendant was experienced in the ways of the criminal justice system (see, e.g., People v Corso, 183 AD2d 774, 775), and was transparently endeavoring to manipulate the court into imposing a lesser sentence than the one he had negotiated for, as he had recently done before the same court in the context of a separate plea agreement regarding another felony that he had committed against his wife (cf., People v Polanco, 96 AD2d 910; People v Valente, 77 AD2d 917; People v Quiles, 72 AD2d 610). S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 507, 689 N.Y.S.2d 162, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-prashad-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack