People v. Vega

110 A.D.2d 730, 488 N.Y.S.2d 198, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48634
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Vega. Read the opinion of the Court — 126 A.D.2d 686

Opinion

On this appeal, defendant contends that his plea of guilty should be vacated since he was not advised, at the taking of the plea, of his right to testify in his own behalf. Having failed either to move to withdraw his plea on this ground prior to the imposition of sentence or subsequent thereto pursuant to CPL 440.10, defendant has not preserved for appellate review the sufficiency of the plea allocution (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hoke, 62 NY2d 1022; People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636; People v Mattocks, 100 AD2d 944; People v Ortiz, 105 AD2d 809). Moreover, were we to review this issue in the interest of justice, vacatur would not be required inasmuch as the allocution satisfied the requirements of People v Harris (61 NY2d 9; see, People v Schron, 109 AD2d 762; People v Velasquez, 107 AD2d 726). Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Vega, 110 A.D.2d 730, 488 N.Y.S.2d 198, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48634 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

110 A.D.2d 730 (People v. Vega) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Pellegrino
454 N.E.2d 938 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)
People v. Harris
459 N.E.2d 170 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)
People v. Hoke
468 N.E.2d 677 (New York Court of Appeals, 1984)
People v. Mattocks
100 A.D.2d 944 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
People v. Ortiz
105 A.D.2d 809 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
People v. Velasquez
107 A.D.2d 726 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
People v. Schron
109 A.D.2d 762 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)