People v. Tejada

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tejada

301 A.D.2d 388, 752 N.Y.S.2d 858, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 121

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

DecidedJanuary 9, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 301 A.D.2d 388 (People v. Tejada) 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. Tejada, 301 A.D.2d 388, 752 N.Y.S.2d 858, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 121 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Solomon, J.), rendered April 6, 1999, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of attempted robbery in the second degree and criminal contempt in the first degree and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of five years and IV2 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

Since defendant did not move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment, and since this case does not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662), his challenge to the voluntariness of his plea is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would conclude that defendant’s plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and that nothing in defendant’s statement at sentencing required any further inquiry by the court.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Buckley, J.P., Ellerin, Lerner, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Solomon, J.), rendered April 6, 1999, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of attempted robbery in the second degree and criminal contempt in the first degree and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of five years and IV2 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

Since defendant did not move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment, and since this case does not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662), his challenge to the voluntariness of his plea is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would conclude that defendant’s plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and that nothing in defendant’s statement at sentencing required any further inquiry by the court.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Buckley, J.P., Ellerin, Lerner, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 A.D.2d 388, 752 N.Y.S.2d 858, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tejada-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack