From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. DaCosta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 24, 1995
217 A.D.2d 661 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

July 24, 1995

Appeal from the County Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's challenge to the adequacy of his plea allocution has not been preserved for appellate review ( see, People v. Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636; People v. Walker, 185 A.D.2d 951). "The defendant made no motion to withdraw his guilty plea prior to sentencing and, although he did make a motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPL article 440, that motion is not before us on the present appeal from the judgment of conviction. Any issue of law concerning the adequacy of his plea allocation, therefore, is not preserved for appellate review" ( People v Esposito, 157 A.D.2d 850, citing People v. Pellegrino, supra; People v. Pascale, 48 N.Y.2d 997; see also, People v. Mathie, 194 A.D.2d 630; People v. Williams, 185 A.D.2d 260). Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, we decline to reach the issue in the exercise of our interest-of-justice jurisdiction. Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. DaCosta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 24, 1995
217 A.D.2d 661 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. DaCosta

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DANIEL DaCOSTA…

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

Date published: Jul 24, 1995

Citations

217 A.D.2d 661 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
630 N.Y.S.2d 247

Citing Cases

People v. Rovinsky

and the sentence imposed thereon; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the…

People v. Rovinsky

that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by vacating the…