From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Conklin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 17, 1994
208 A.D.2d 763 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

October 17, 1994

Appeal from the County Court, Orange County (Pano Z. Patsalos, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to his contention, the defendant received the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137). The record reveals that the defendant's attorney negotiated an advantageous plea agreement that substantially limited the defendant's exposure to imprisonment (see, People v. Ladelokun, 192 A.D.2d 723; People v. Nicholls, 157 A.D.2d 1004). Additionally, the record reveals that the defendant clearly did not want to go to trial because he refused the sentencing court's offer to withdraw his guilty plea (see, People v. Hayes, 186 A.D.2d 268).

Since the defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive the sentence that was thereafter imposed, he has no basis to complain that his sentence is excessive (see, People v. Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816).

We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Miller, O'Brien, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Conklin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 17, 1994
208 A.D.2d 763 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Conklin

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. TERRANCE CONKLIN…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 17, 1994

Citations

208 A.D.2d 763 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
618 N.Y.S.2d 538

Citing Cases

People v. Vega

Further, "[t] he defendant expressed no dissatisfaction with his counsel at the time of the plea, after the…

People v. Osamudiamen

Accordingly, under the circumstances, the TLC inspector's interference with the defendant's vehicle was…