People v. Zhitlovsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Zhitlovsky

126 A.D.2d 589, 510 N.Y.S.2d 709, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41730

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

DecidedJanuary 12, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 126 A.D.2d 589 (People v. Zhitlovsky) 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. Zhitlovsky, 126 A.D.2d 589, 510 N.Y.S.2d 709, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41730 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), rendered June 15, 1984, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Having failed to seek vacatur of his plea before Criminal Term, either prior to or at the time of sentence, the issue now raised by the defendant as to the sufficiency of the plea allocution has not been preserved for appellate review as a matter of law (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636). We find no basis in this record for review in the interest of justice (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9). The defendant, having pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive the sentence which was thereafter actually imposed, has no basis now to complain that his sentence was excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). Nor do we find the defendant’s claim that he was denied his right to appear before the Grand Jury valid as the defendant failed to make a proper, timely request therefor (see, CPL 190.50 [5]). Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Weinstein, Kunzeman and Spatt, 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 Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), rendered June 15, 1984, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Having failed to seek vacatur of his plea before Criminal Term, either prior to or at the time of sentence, the issue now raised by the defendant as to the sufficiency of the plea allocution has not been preserved for appellate review as a matter of law (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636). We find no basis in this record for review in the interest of justice (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9). The defendant, having pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive the sentence which was thereafter actually imposed, has no basis now to complain that his sentence was excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). Nor do we find the defendant’s claim that he was denied his right to appear before the Grand Jury valid as the defendant failed to make a proper, timely request therefor (see, CPL 190.50 [5]). Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Weinstein, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.2d 589, 510 N.Y.S.2d 709, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41730, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-zhitlovsky-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack