People v. Reed

247 A.D.2d 874, 668 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1199
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Reed. Read the opinion of the Court — 236 A.D.2d 866

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution by moving either to withdraw the plea under CPL 220.60 (3) or to vacate the judgment under CPL 440.10 (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665). In any event, defendant’s plea of guilty was entered knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently. Finally, the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, [875]*875Cunningham, J. — Burglary, 3rd Degree.)

Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

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

People v. Reed, 247 A.D.2d 874, 668 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1199 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

247 A.D.2d 874 (People v. Reed) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Lopez
525 N.E.2d 5 (New York Court of Appeals, 1988)