People v. Stanislas

89 A.D.3d 1043, 933 N.Y.2d 569

Opinion

The defendant’s contention that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made because the Supreme Court failed to specifically enumerate certain of his constitutional rights is unpreserved for appellate review since he did not move to withdraw his plea on that ground prior to [1044]*1044sentencing (see GPL 470.05 [2]; People v Reyes, 41 AD3d 620 [2007]; People v Watson, 19 AD3d 518 [2005]; People v Maddy, 110 AD2d 719 [1985]), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Chambers and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Stanislas, 89 A.D.3d 1043, 933 N.Y.2d 569 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

89 A.D.3d 1043 (People v. Stanislas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Watson
19 A.D.3d 518 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
People v. Reyes
41 A.D.3d 620 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
People v. Maddy
110 A.D.2d 719 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)