From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Pryslopski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Feb 6, 1992
180 A.D.2d 839 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

February 6, 1992

Appeal from the County Court, Chemung County (Castellino, J.).


Initially, we note that insofar as defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea or to make a postverdict motion to vacate the judgment of conviction, he has failed to preserve for our review the challenge to the sufficiency of the plea allocution (see, People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662; People v. Clickner, 128 A.D.2d 917, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 644). In any event, the record establishes that defendant understood the significance and effect of his plea and that it was therefore knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made (see, People v. Harris, 103 A.D.2d 891). Defendant has also failed to show that defense counsel failed to satisfy the standards for meaningful representation set forth in People v. Baldi ( 54 N.Y.2d 137).

Mikoll, J.P., Yesawich Jr., Mercure, Crew III and Mahoney, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Pryslopski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Feb 6, 1992
180 A.D.2d 839 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Pryslopski

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JAMES PRYSLOPSKI…

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

Date published: Feb 6, 1992

Citations

180 A.D.2d 839 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
579 N.Y.S.2d 764