People v. Small

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Small

125 A.D.2d 614, 509 N.Y.S.2d 782, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62907

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

DecidedDecember 22, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 125 A.D.2d 614 (People v. Small) 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. Small, 125 A.D.2d 614, 509 N.Y.S.2d 782, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62907 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Naro, J.), rendered July 7, 1982, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review the issue of the plea allocution’s sufficiency (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636). Moreover, were we to review this issue in the interest of justice, reversal would not be warranted. The record indicates that the defendant’s plea was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9).

Defense counsel’s apparent argument that the factual recitation of the underlying crime might have been insufficient is without merit (see, People v Riley, 120 AD2d 752; People v Dixon, 119 AD2d 831). Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Weinstein, Kunzeman and Spatt, 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 Supreme Court, Queens County (Naro, J.), rendered July 7, 1982, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review the issue of the plea allocution’s sufficiency (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636). Moreover, were we to review this issue in the interest of justice, reversal would not be warranted. The record indicates that the defendant’s plea was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9).

Defense counsel’s apparent argument that the factual recitation of the underlying crime might have been insufficient is without merit (see, People v Riley, 120 AD2d 752; People v Dixon, 119 AD2d 831). Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Weinstein, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 A.D.2d 614, 509 N.Y.S.2d 782, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-small-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack