People v. Sanchez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sanchez

29 A.D.3d 308, 813 N.Y.S.2d 299

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

DecidedMay 2, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.3d 308 (People v. Sanchez) 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. Sanchez, 29 A.D.3d 308, 813 N.Y.S.2d 299 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John A. Barone, J.), rendered August 26, 2004, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted assault in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 3V2 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty (see People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520 [1978]). Each of the claims defendant made in his written motion was directly contradicted by the plea allocution record, which establishes that the plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. Defendant was not entitled to a hearing or further inquiry simply because, in his motion, he disavowed the responses he had made to the court’s careful questioning at the time of the plea. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Nardelli, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John A. Barone, J.), rendered August 26, 2004, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted assault in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 3V2 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty (see People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520 [1978]). Each of the claims defendant made in his written motion was directly contradicted by the plea allocution record, which establishes that the plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. Defendant was not entitled to a hearing or further inquiry simply because, in his motion, he disavowed the responses he had made to the court’s careful questioning at the time of the plea. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Nardelli, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.3d 308, 813 N.Y.S.2d 299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sanchez-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack