From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Fudge

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 23, 1985
113 A.D.2d 900 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

September 23, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.).


Judgment affirmed.

As defendant correctly concedes, she has failed to preserve for appellate review her challenge to the plea allocution (see, People v Claudio, 64 N.Y.2d 858). To preserve such a claim for appellate review on a direct appeal from a judgment of conviction, a defendant must move to set aside his plea pursuant to CPL 220.60 (3) prior to the imposition of sentence.

In the absence of unusual circumstances not here present, we see no reason to exercise our authority to review in the interest of justice an unpreserved claim that the plea allocution was insufficient. Nor does there exist any reason to set aside the sentence imposed, which was agreed to in the course of plea negotiations (see, People v Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816). Lazer, J.P., O'Connor, Weinstein and Niehoff, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Fudge

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 23, 1985
113 A.D.2d 900 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

People v. Fudge

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. BRENDA FUDGE, Appellant

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

Date published: Sep 23, 1985

Citations

113 A.D.2d 900 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
493 N.Y.S.2d 617

Citing Cases

People v. Epakchi

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: either both or neither constitutes a reviewable rule. As a…

People v. Epakchi

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: either both or neither constitutes a reviewable rule. As a…