From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Orr

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 24, 1985
111 A.D.2d 937 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

June 24, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lane, J.).


Judgments affirmed.

On this appeal, the defendant contends that his pleas of guilty should be vacated because he was not advised at the taking of the pleas of his "Constitutional right to force the People to prove his guilt to a unanimous jury". Having failed either to move to withdraw his plea on this ground prior to the imposition of sentence ( see, CPL 220.60), or to vacate judgment pursuant to CPL 440.10, the defendant has not preserved the issue of the sufficiency of the plea allocution for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Claudio, 64 N.Y.2d 858; People v Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636; People v. Mattocks, 100 A.D.2d 944). Moreover, were we to review this issue in the interest of justice, vacatur would not be required because the allocution satisfied the requirements of People v. Harris ( 61 N.Y.2d 9).

There is no merit to the defendant's contention that his consecutive sentences, which were imposed in accordance with the negotiated plea agreements ( see, People v. La Lande, 104 A.D.2d 1052; People v. Nelson, 104 A.D.2d 1055; People v. Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816), were unduly harsh or excessive. Moreover, we perceive no basis for modifying the sentences in the interest of justice ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mollen, P.J., Lazer, Mangano and Brown, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Orr

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 24, 1985
111 A.D.2d 937 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

People v. Orr

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JAMES ORR, Appellant

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

Date published: Jun 24, 1985

Citations

111 A.D.2d 937 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

People v. Powell

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the minimum permissible…

People v. McAllister

There is no general requirement that a court inquire into a defendant's possible affirmative defenses, unless…