People v. Van Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Van Williams

130 A.D.2d 788, 516 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46820

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

DecidedMay 26, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 130 A.D.2d 788 (People v. Van Williams) 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 Williams, 130 A.D.2d 788, 516 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46820 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Patsalos, J.), rendered June 21, 1985, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s presentence application to withdraw his plea of guilty. The defendant was sentenced as a second felony offender in accordance with the promise made when he entered his plea. The claimed misadvice of the defendant’s attorney concerning when the promised sentence would begin [789]*789to run (see, Penal Law § 70.25 [2-a]) was not placed on the record at the time of his plea, and is not entitled to judicial recognition (People v Ramos, 63 NY2d 640). Moreover, the defendant’s present claim of ineffective assistance of counsel should have been made by an appropriate postconviction motion (cf., People v Brown, 45 NY2d 852). Mollen, P. J., Brown, Weinstein, Eiber and Harwood, 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 County Court, Orange County (Patsalos, J.), rendered June 21, 1985, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s presentence application to withdraw his plea of guilty. The defendant was sentenced as a second felony offender in accordance with the promise made when he entered his plea. The claimed misadvice of the defendant’s attorney concerning when the promised sentence would begin [789]*789to run (see, Penal Law § 70.25 [2-a]) was not placed on the record at the time of his plea, and is not entitled to judicial recognition (People v Ramos, 63 NY2d 640). Moreover, the defendant’s present claim of ineffective assistance of counsel should have been made by an appropriate postconviction motion (cf., People v Brown, 45 NY2d 852). Mollen, P. J., Brown, Weinstein, Eiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 A.D.2d 788, 516 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-van-williams-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack