People v. Velez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Velez

202 A.D.2d 264, 609 N.Y.S.2d 783, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2434

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 202 A.D.2d 264 (People v. Velez) 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. Velez, 202 A.D.2d 264, 609 N.Y.S.2d 783, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2434 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Brenda Soloff, J.), rendered January 17, 1992, convicting defendant, upon his guilty plea, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years to run consecutively with his prior felony conviction, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that his plea was not knowingly or voluntarily made has not been preserved for review since he failed to move to vacate or withdraw his plea (People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636), and we decline to consider it in the interest of justice. In any event, we would find it to be meritless. Concur —Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Asch, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Brenda Soloff, J.), rendered January 17, 1992, convicting defendant, upon his guilty plea, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years to run consecutively with his prior felony conviction, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that his plea was not knowingly or voluntarily made has not been preserved for review since he failed to move to vacate or withdraw his plea (People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636), and we decline to consider it in the interest of justice. In any event, we would find it to be meritless. Concur —Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Asch, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 264, 609 N.Y.S.2d 783, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-velez-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack