People v. Sweet

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sweet

77 A.D.2d 705, 430 N.Y.S.2d 407, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12440

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

DecidedJuly 10, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 77 A.D.2d 705 (People v. Sweet) 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. Sweet, 77 A.D.2d 705, 430 N.Y.S.2d 407, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12440 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Otsego County, rendered October 22, 1979, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the second degree. The defendant first contends that the trial court should have suppressed a statement made by him immediately following his apprehension and arrest. However, the statement was spontaneous and does not fall within the ambit of People v Samuels (49 NY2d 218). (See People v Lanahan, 75 AD2d 185.) The record reveals that the plea to burglary in the second degree was in satisfaction of an indictment charging burglary in the first degree and the sentence imposed was the minimum required by law. The contention that the plea of guilty reflects ineffective or incompetent trial counsel has no substance. Judgment affirmed. Staley, Jr. J. P., Main, Mikoll, Casey and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Otsego County, rendered October 22, 1979, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the second degree. The defendant first contends that the trial court should have suppressed a statement made by him immediately following his apprehension and arrest. However, the statement was spontaneous and does not fall within the ambit of People v Samuels (49 NY2d 218). (See People v Lanahan, 75 AD2d 185.) The record reveals that the plea to burglary in the second degree was in satisfaction of an indictment charging burglary in the first degree and the sentence imposed was the minimum required by law. The contention that the plea of guilty reflects ineffective or incompetent trial counsel has no substance. Judgment affirmed. Staley, Jr. J. P., Main, Mikoll, Casey and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 A.D.2d 705, 430 N.Y.S.2d 407, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sweet-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack