People v. Ruffino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ruffino

270 A.D.2d 365, 704 N.Y.S.2d 862, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2713

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

DecidedMarch 13, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 270 A.D.2d 365 (People v. Ruffino) 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. Ruffino, 270 A.D.2d 365, 704 N.Y.S.2d 862, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2713 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Kowtna, J.), rendered March 8, 1998, convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol as a felony and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contentions regarding the adequacy of the plea allocution and the effectiveness of his counsel are unpreserved for appellate review, as he did not move in the Supreme Court either to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment on those grounds (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636; People v Leo, 255 AD2d 458). In any event, his contentions are without merit.

[366]*366The defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his claim that the sentence is excessive (see, People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733). O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, 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 County Court, Nassau County (Kowtna, J.), rendered March 8, 1998, convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol as a felony and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contentions regarding the adequacy of the plea allocution and the effectiveness of his counsel are unpreserved for appellate review, as he did not move in the Supreme Court either to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment on those grounds (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636; People v Leo, 255 AD2d 458). In any event, his contentions are without merit.

[366]*366The defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his claim that the sentence is excessive (see, People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733). O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 365, 704 N.Y.S.2d 862, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ruffino-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack