People v. Rosario

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rosario

4 A.D.3d 116, 770 N.Y.S.2d 861

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 4 A.D.3d 116 (People v. Rosario) 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. Rosario, 4 A.D.3d 116, 770 N.Y.S.2d 861 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Obus, J.), rendered May 1, 2002, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 1 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

The record establishes that defendant’s guilty plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. “[T]his Court has repeatedly rejected the argument that a defendant who pleads guilty is entitled to be advised of the effect of the plea on sentences he or she might receive for future crimes” (People v Parker, 309 AD2d 508, 509 [2003] [citations omitted]). The record also establishes that defendant received effective assistance of counsel throughout the plea and sentencing proceedings (see People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe and Marlow, JJ.

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

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Obus, J.), rendered May 1, 2002, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 1 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

The record establishes that defendant’s guilty plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. “[T]his Court has repeatedly rejected the argument that a defendant who pleads guilty is entitled to be advised of the effect of the plea on sentences he or she might receive for future crimes” (People v Parker, 309 AD2d 508, 509 [2003] [citations omitted]). The record also establishes that defendant received effective assistance of counsel throughout the plea and sentencing proceedings (see People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.3d 116, 770 N.Y.S.2d 861, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rosario-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack