People v. Zhiqi Zou

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Zhiqi Zou

249 A.D.2d 140, 671 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4341

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

DecidedApril 21, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D.2d 140 (People v. Zhiqi Zou) 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. Zhiqi Zou, 249 A.D.2d 140, 671 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4341 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Franklin Weissberg, J., at plea; Michael Obús, J., at sentence), rendered June 7, 1994, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted kidnapping in the first degree, and sentencing him to an indeterminate prison term of from 6 to 18 years, unanimously affirmed.

As this record reveals, the factual allocution at the time of the taking of defendant’s guilty plea was completely adequate. We discern no defect in the plea-taking proceedings nor any abuse of discretion in the court’s sentence.

We have examined the other arguments made in defendant’s pro se supplemental brief and find that they are without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Williams, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Franklin Weissberg, J., at plea; Michael Obús, J., at sentence), rendered June 7, 1994, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted kidnapping in the first degree, and sentencing him to an indeterminate prison term of from 6 to 18 years, unanimously affirmed.

As this record reveals, the factual allocution at the time of the taking of defendant’s guilty plea was completely adequate. We discern no defect in the plea-taking proceedings nor any abuse of discretion in the court’s sentence.

We have examined the other arguments made in defendant’s pro se supplemental brief and find that they are without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Williams, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 140, 671 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-zhiqi-zou-nyappdiv-1998.