People v. Ortiz
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
| Writing for the Court | BRACKEN |
| Citation | 628 N.Y.S.2d 559,216 A.D.2d 495 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Hector ORTIZ, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 19 June 1995 |
Page 559
v.
Hector ORTIZ, Appellant.
Second Department.
Daniel L. Greenberg, New York City (Kenneth Finkelman, of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Steven J. Chananie, Linda Cantoni, and Sharon Y. Brodt, of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County [216 A.D.2d 496] (Katz, J.), rendered September 16, 1992, convicting him of murder in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant, by pleading guilty, forfeited appellate review of any claim that his right to testify before the Grand Jury had been violated (see, People v. Lasher, 199 A.D.2d 595, 605 N.Y.S.2d 973; People v. Kelly, 198 A.D.2d 305, 604 N.Y.S.2d 821; People v. Torra, 191 A.D.2d 738, 594 N.Y.S.2d 419; People v. Ferrara, 99 A.D.2d 257, 472 N.Y.S.2d 407).
Further, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by denying, without a hearing, the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty (see, People v. Frederick, 45 N.Y.2d 520, 410 N.Y.S.2d 555, 382 N.E.2d 1332; People v. Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d 926, 365 N.Y.S.2d 161, 324 N.E.2d 544; People v. Lisbon, 187 A.D.2d 457, 589 N.Y.S.2d 527; People v. Richardson, 214 A.D.2d 624, 624 N.Y.S.2d 960).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit (see, People v. James, 192 A.D.2d 555, 596 N.Y.S.2d 100), or involve matters dehors the record (see, People v. Grazzette, 211 A.D.2d 822, 621 N.Y.S.2d 917; People v. Perez, 208 A.D.2d 960, 618 N.Y.S.2d 579; People v. Dyson, 200 A.D.2d 756, 608 N.Y.S.2d 864).
BRACKEN, J.P., and ROSENBLATT, RITTER and GOLDSTEIN, JJ., concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Rodriguez
...or questionable police procedures” ( People v. Gomez, 60 A.D.3d at 783, 874 N.Y.S.2d 582;see People v. Nunez, 216 A.D.2d 494, 495, 628 N.Y.S.2d 559). Here, the Supreme Court did not err in concluding, based on the hearing record, that the station-house identification at issue was accidental......
- People v. Brown
- People v. Brown, 2012-07098
-
People v. Nunez
...628 N.Y.S.2d 559 216 A.D.2d 494 The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Ramon NUNEZ, Appellant. Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department. June 19, 1995. Daniel L. Greenberg, New York City (Richard A. Mastrocola, of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se. Charles J. H......