People v. Tsintzelis (George)

74 Misc. 3d 126(A), 2022 NY Slip Op 50045(U)
CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedJanuary 7, 2022
Docket2019-1076 Q CR
StatusUnpublished

This text of 74 Misc. 3d 126(A) (People v. Tsintzelis (George)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court 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. Tsintzelis (George), 74 Misc. 3d 126(A), 2022 NY Slip Op 50045(U) (N.Y. Ct. App. 2022).

Opinion

People v Tsintzelis (2022 NY Slip Op 50045(U)) [*1]

People v Tsintzelis (George)
2022 NY Slip Op 50045(U) [74 Misc 3d 126(A)]
Decided on January 7, 2022
Appellate Term, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on January 7, 2022
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, P.J., WAVNY TOUSSAINT, DONNA-MARIE E. GOLIA, JJ
2019-1076 Q CR

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

George Tsintzelis, Appellant.


New York City Legal Aid Society (Tomoeh Murakami Tse of counsel), for appellant. Queens County District Attorney (Johnnette Traill, Ellen C. Abbot and Jordan LoCascio of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Karen Gopee, J.), rendered July 12, 2018. The judgement convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of petit larceny, and imposed sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Upon a review of the record, we find no merit to defendant's sole appellate contention that the statements made by a judge, at a calendar call which took place almost five months prior to defendant's plea of guilty before a different judge, were coercive and rendered his subsequent guilty plea involuntary as a matter of law. Defendant's responses to the court's inquiries during the plea proceeding show that his plea of guilty was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]; People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 283 [1992]), and that no threats or promises had induced the plea (see People v Ramos-Perez, 188 AD3d 1741, 1742 [2020]; People v Jenkins, 117 AD3d 1528, 1528 [2014]). Also, there was nothing in the plea allocution that casts significant doubt on defendant's guilt (see People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725 [1995]).

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., TOUSSAINT and GOLIA, JJ., concur.



ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: January 7, 2022

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

Related

People v. Fiumefreddo
626 N.E.2d 646 (New York Court of Appeals, 1993)
People v. Toxey
655 N.E.2d 160 (New York Court of Appeals, 1995)
People v. Ramos-Perez
2020 NY Slip Op 06902 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
People v. Callahan
80 N.Y.2d 273 (New York Court of Appeals, 1992)
People v. Jenkins
117 A.D.3d 1528 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
74 Misc. 3d 126(A), 2022 NY Slip Op 50045(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tsintzelis-george-nyappterm-2022.