From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Ramirez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 27, 1990
159 A.D.2d 392 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

March 27, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Altman, J.).


The defendant did not move to withdraw his plea before the imposition of sentence and, therefore, has not preserved for appellate review his challenge to the sufficiency of the plea allocution (People v Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636). The defendant contends that his plea allocution was incomplete since the court failed to elicit an adequate factual basis for the plea, did not inquire into the voluntariness of the plea, and failed to advise defendant he was foregoing his right to have his guilt proved beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial at which he would be afforded the presumption of innocence.

The record indicates, however, that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered his guilty plea. (Boykin v Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242.) It is well established that there is no uniform mandatory catechism which the court must elicit to render a defendant's plea appropriate. (People v Nixon, 21 N.Y.2d 338, 353.)

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ross, Milonas, Smith and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Ramirez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 27, 1990
159 A.D.2d 392 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Ramirez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. HERBERT COLLAZOS…

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

Date published: Mar 27, 1990

Citations

159 A.D.2d 392 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Citing Cases

People v. Melendez

Defendant's claim that the plea allocution was inadequate is not preserved. The plea was entered after…

People v. Kennedy

Memorandum: By failing to move to withdraw his plea before sentencing, defendant failed to preserve for our…