People v. Ruiz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ruiz

200 A.D.2d 777, 608 N.Y.S.2d 866

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 200 A.D.2d 777 (People v. Ruiz) 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. Ruiz, 200 A.D.2d 777, 608 N.Y.S.2d 866 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Dunne, J.), rendered August 17, 1992, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The court properly denied the defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea without conducting an evidentiary hearing (see, People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926; People v Alicea, 191 AD2d 702). Appellate review of the claim of excessive sentence was effectively waived by the defendant as part of his plea bargain (see, People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273; People v Sea-berg, 74 NY2d 1). We have, however examined the defendant’s contention that the sentence was excessive and find it to be without merit (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). Bracken, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Dunne, J.), rendered August 17, 1992, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The court properly denied the defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea without conducting an evidentiary hearing (see, People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926; People v Alicea, 191 AD2d 702). Appellate review of the claim of excessive sentence was effectively waived by the defendant as part of his plea bargain (see, People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273; People v Sea-berg, 74 NY2d 1). We have, however examined the defendant’s contention that the sentence was excessive and find it to be without merit (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). Bracken, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 A.D.2d 777, 608 N.Y.S.2d 866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ruiz-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack