From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Moore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 22, 1990
157 A.D.2d 805 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

January 22, 1990

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


Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant contends that his pleas of guilty were improperly entered because he was not adequately informed of the consequences he might face if he were to be convicted of a third violent felony on some future date and was not adequately questioned regarding the facts supporting his guilt of the crimes.

The record indicates that the defendant failed to move before the Supreme Court to withdraw his pleas prior to sentence pursuant to CPL 220.60 (3) or to vacate the judgment of conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10. Accordingly, he has not preserved his claims regarding the acceptance of his pleas of guilty for appellate review (see, People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662). In any event, the record clearly reflects that the pleas were entered knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently (see, Brady v United States, 397 U.S. 742, 747).

The defendant's further contention that he was denied his right to counsel at a lineup conducted with respect to indictment No. 825/85 is also without merit. Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the record clearly indicates that no court order was issued to produce the defendant at the lineup conducted on February 12, 1985, and that he was in fact at liberty prior to his arrest following the lineup. Accordingly, the defendant's right to counsel had not attached at the time of his appearance in the lineup and the absence of counsel at that time therefore did not constitute a violation of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights (cf., People v. Coates, 137 A.D.2d 192).

Finally, the defendant's contention that he did not receive meaningful representation of counsel is not supported by the record. The evidence, the law and the circumstances of this case viewed together and as of the time of representation reveal that the defendant was provided with effective assistance of counsel (see, People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 798-799). Mollen, P.J., Mangano, Thompson and Brown, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Moore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 22, 1990
157 A.D.2d 805 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Moore

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. NATHANIEL MOORE…

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

Date published: Jan 22, 1990

Citations

157 A.D.2d 805 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Citing Cases

Navarro v. State

Although it is unlikely that the allegedly hazardous and dangerous condition that caused movant's injuries…