People v. Van Koevering

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Van Koevering

266 A.D.2d 906, 698 N.Y.S.2d 182, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11863

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

DecidedNovember 12, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 266 A.D.2d 906 (People v. Van Koevering) 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. Van Koevering, 266 A.D.2d 906, 698 N.Y.S.2d 182, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11863 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: With respect to the contention of defendant that his suppression motion should have been granted, we affirm for reasons stated in the decision [907]*907at Wayne County Court (Kehoe, J.). By failing to move to withdraw his guilty plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the sufficiency of the plea allocution (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665; People v McGovern, 265 AD2d 881). We reject defendant’s contention that this is one of those rare case exceptions to the preservation rule (see, People v Lopez, supra, at 666; People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726, rearg denied 86 NY2d 839). Finally, the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Wayne County Court, Kehoe, J.— Assault, 1st Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Pigott, Jr., Scudder and Callahan, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: With respect to the contention of defendant that his suppression motion should have been granted, we affirm for reasons stated in the decision [907]*907at Wayne County Court (Kehoe, J.). By failing to move to withdraw his guilty plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the sufficiency of the plea allocution (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665; People v McGovern, 265 AD2d 881). We reject defendant’s contention that this is one of those rare case exceptions to the preservation rule (see, People v Lopez, supra, at 666; People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726, rearg denied 86 NY2d 839). Finally, the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Wayne County Court, Kehoe, J.— Assault, 1st Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Pigott, Jr., Scudder and Callahan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 906, 698 N.Y.S.2d 182, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-van-koevering-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack