People v. Robert D.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Robert D.

200 A.D.2d 756, 608 N.Y.S.2d 874

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 200 A.D.2d 756 (People v. Robert D.) 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. Robert D., 200 A.D.2d 756, 608 N.Y.S.2d 874 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.), rendered June 25, 1993, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of endangering the public health, safety, or environment in the second degree.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

The record fails to support the defendant’s claims that his admission to violating his probation was improvident or baseless, or that his factual recitation cast significant doubt upon his guilt (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662; People v Durant, 198 AD2d 515; People v Pernell, 189 AD2d 833; People v Nina, 184 AD2d 593; People v Minard, 161 AD2d 607).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or lacking in merit. Thompson, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.), rendered June 25, 1993, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of endangering the public health, safety, or environment in the second degree.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

The record fails to support the defendant’s claims that his admission to violating his probation was improvident or baseless, or that his factual recitation cast significant doubt upon his guilt (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662; People v Durant, 198 AD2d 515; People v Pernell, 189 AD2d 833; People v Nina, 184 AD2d 593; People v Minard, 161 AD2d 607).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or lacking in merit. Thompson, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 A.D.2d 756, 608 N.Y.S.2d 874, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-robert-d-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack