People v. Sosa

228 A.D.2d 271, 643 N.Y.2d 344, 643 N.Y.S.2d 344, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6716
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Sosa. Read the opinion of the Court — 246 A.D.2d 387

Opinion

Defendant’s claim that his plea was not entered voluntarily is unpreserved for appellate review since, upon reconsideration and consultation with counsel, defendant abandoned his motion to withdraw the plea (see, People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725). In any event, the record clearly establishes the voluntariness of the plea and that an opportunity had been given to defendant to address the court prior to the imposition of sentence. Defendant was not denied his right to be present since neither of the two bench conferences from which he was absent "presented the potential for his meaningful participation” (People v Rodriguez, 85 NY2d 586, 591). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

People v. Sosa, 228 A.D.2d 271, 643 N.Y.2d 344, 643 N.Y.S.2d 344, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6716 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

228 A.D.2d 271 (People v. Sosa) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Toxey
655 N.E.2d 160 (New York Court of Appeals, 1995)
People v. Rodriguez
650 N.E.2d 1293 (New York Court of Appeals, 1995)