From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Lancaster

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 30, 1990
163 A.D.2d 614 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

July 30, 1990

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


Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention with respect to the sufficiency of her plea allocution has not been preserved for appellate review as she did not move to withdraw her plea under CPL 220.60 (3) or to vacate the judgment of conviction under CPL 440.10 (see, People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662; People v. Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636). Furthermore, by pleading to a lesser crime than that charged in the indictment, the defendant forfeited the right to challenge the factual basis of the plea (see, People v. Adams, 57 N.Y.2d 1035; People v. Rivera, 143 A.D.2d 783).

The sentence imposed upon the finding that the defendant had violated the previously imposed sentence of probation was not an improvident exercise of the court's discretion (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Thompson, J.P., Brown, Balletta and Miller, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Lancaster

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 30, 1990
163 A.D.2d 614 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Lancaster

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. KIM LANCASTER, Also…

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

Date published: Jul 30, 1990

Citations

163 A.D.2d 614 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
559 N.Y.S.2d 42

Citing Cases

People v. Bruno

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his…