From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Snitzel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 29, 2000
270 A.D.2d 836 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

March 29, 2000.

Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Marks, J. — Sexual Abuse, 1st Degree.

PRESENT: GREEN, J. P., HAYES, HURLBUTT AND LAWTON, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum:

By failing to move to withdraw his plea of guilty or to vacate the judgment of conviction, defendant failed to preserve for our review the contention in his pro se supplemental brief that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily or intelligently entered ( see, People v. Earket , 256 A.D.2d 1194, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 873). The further contention of defendant in his pro se supplemental brief that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based on defense counsel's failure to make appropriate motions is without merit. To the extent that defendant's contention is based on defense counsel's failure to provide appropriate advice with respect to plea offers and to investigate defendant's case, it is based upon information outside of the record and thus is not subject to review on direct appeal ( see, People v. Chiera , 255 A.D.2d 685, 686; People v. Speed , 226 A.D.2d 1090, 1091, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 969). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe.


Summaries of

People v. Snitzel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 29, 2000
270 A.D.2d 836 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

People v. Snitzel

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. RICHARD SNITZEL…

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

Date published: Mar 29, 2000

Citations

270 A.D.2d 836 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
705 N.Y.S.2d 541

Citing Cases

Snitzel v. Murry

Snitzel submitted a pro se supplemental brief in which he argued that his sentence was harsh and excessive,…

Williams v. Conway

Supreme Court properly denied defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 330.30 to set aside the verdict on that…