From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Ortiz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 13, 1984
105 A.D.2d 760 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Opinion

November 13, 1984

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


Judgments affirmed.

Defendant failed to properly preserve the issue raised as to the sufficiency of his plea allocution ( People v Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636; People v Pascale, 48 N.Y.2d 997; People v Bell, 47 N.Y.2d 839; People v Warren, 47 N.Y.2d 740): Even if defendant had properly preserved this issue, the record indicates that the guilty pleas were entered into voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently ( People v Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9; People v Nixon, 21 N.Y.2d 338, cert den. sub nom. Robinson v New York, 393 U.S. 1067). Nor is any basis advanced requiring a modification of the sentence ( People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mangano, J.P., Gibbons, O'Connor and Lawrence, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Ortiz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 13, 1984
105 A.D.2d 760 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)
Case details for

People v. Ortiz

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ENRIQUE ORTIZ…

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

Date published: Nov 13, 1984

Citations

105 A.D.2d 760 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Citing Cases

People v. Maddy

Defendant contends that he should be relieved of his guilty plea because the court failed to advise him that,…