From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Otero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 13, 1993
199 A.D.2d 342 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

December 13, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.).


Ordered that the judgment and amended judgment are affirmed.

The defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived her right to appeal (see, People v Callahan, 80 N.Y.2d 273; People v Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1). Further, the defendant's challenges to the adequacy of her plea of guilty, e.g., her contention that the court failed to question her about the medication she was taking at the time she pleaded guilty, and her challenge to her admission, are unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662; People v Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636). In any event, we are satisfied from the record that the defendant's plea of guilty and admission were voluntary and intelligent (see generally, People v Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9). Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Eiber, O'Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Otero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 13, 1993
199 A.D.2d 342 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

People v. Otero

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DENISE OTERO, Appellant

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

Date published: Dec 13, 1993

Citations

199 A.D.2d 342 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
606 N.Y.S.2d 999

Citing Cases

People v. Patterson

The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent is unpreserved…