People v. Valdivia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Valdivia

198 A.D.2d 246, 604 N.Y.S.2d 807

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

DecidedNovember 1, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 198 A.D.2d 246 (People v. Valdivia) 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. Valdivia, 198 A.D.2d 246, 604 N.Y.S.2d 807 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Chetta, J.), rendered January 23, 1991, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that his plea of guilty was not entered into knowingly and intelligently because the court did not inquire as to whether he understood English is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Espinal, 176 AD2d 417). In any event, the record demonstrates that the defendant understood the significance and effect of his plea and that he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered a plea of guilty (see, People v Williams, 189 AD2d 910; People v Espinal, supra).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Eiber, O’Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Chetta, J.), rendered January 23, 1991, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that his plea of guilty was not entered into knowingly and intelligently because the court did not inquire as to whether he understood English is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Espinal, 176 AD2d 417). In any event, the record demonstrates that the defendant understood the significance and effect of his plea and that he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered a plea of guilty (see, People v Williams, 189 AD2d 910; People v Espinal, supra).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Eiber, O’Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 246, 604 N.Y.S.2d 807, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-valdivia-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack