People v. Richardson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Richardson

58 A.D.3d 877, 870 N.Y.S.2d 925

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

DecidedJanuary 27, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 58 A.D.3d 877 (People v. Richardson) 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. Richardson, 58 A.D.3d 877, 870 N.Y.S.2d 925 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Bangs County [878]*878(Mangano, Jr., J.), rendered October 4, 2007, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing or voluntary because the court failed to elicit from him a waiver of his right to a ruling on his pending motion to suppress evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v LeGrady, 50 AD3d 1059 [2008]; People v Ramsey, 49 AD3d 565 [2008]; People v Herdt, 45 AD3d 698 [2007]) and, in any event, is refuted by the record (see People v Boston, 30 AD3d 211 [2006]; People v Kenrick, 233 AD2d 528 [1996]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P, Fisher, Florio, Garni and Eng, 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, Bangs County [878]*878(Mangano, Jr., J.), rendered October 4, 2007, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing or voluntary because the court failed to elicit from him a waiver of his right to a ruling on his pending motion to suppress evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v LeGrady, 50 AD3d 1059 [2008]; People v Ramsey, 49 AD3d 565 [2008]; People v Herdt, 45 AD3d 698 [2007]) and, in any event, is refuted by the record (see People v Boston, 30 AD3d 211 [2006]; People v Kenrick, 233 AD2d 528 [1996]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P, Fisher, Florio, Garni and Eng, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.3d 877, 870 N.Y.S.2d 925, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-richardson-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack