People v. Theodore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Theodore

110 A.D.2d 793, 488 N.Y.S.2d 63, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48697

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

DecidedApril 15, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 110 A.D.2d 793 (People v. Theodore) 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. Theodore, 110 A.D.2d 793, 488 N.Y.S.2d 63, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48697 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant’s claims concerning the alleged inadequacy of his plea allocutions were not raised before Criminal Term and, therefore, they are not preserved for appellate review (People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636). In any event, the record reveals that defendant’s allocutions established the requisite elements of rape in the first degree, that the court’s inquiry was sufficiently detailed, and that defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently pleaded guilty (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9).

Moreover, the sentences imposed upon defendant were the result of plea negotiations and reflect the serious nature of his [794]*794crimes. Under these circumstances, the sentencing court did not abuse its discretion by imposing consecutive sentences of 2 to 6 years and 3 to 9 years (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816).

We further note that we have considered the arguments in defendant’s pro se brief and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

Defendant’s claims concerning the alleged inadequacy of his plea allocutions were not raised before Criminal Term and, therefore, they are not preserved for appellate review (People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636). In any event, the record reveals that defendant’s allocutions established the requisite elements of rape in the first degree, that the court’s inquiry was sufficiently detailed, and that defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently pleaded guilty (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9).

Moreover, the sentences imposed upon defendant were the result of plea negotiations and reflect the serious nature of his [794]*794crimes. Under these circumstances, the sentencing court did not abuse its discretion by imposing consecutive sentences of 2 to 6 years and 3 to 9 years (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816).

We further note that we have considered the arguments in defendant’s pro se brief and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A.D.2d 793, 488 N.Y.S.2d 63, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-theodore-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack