People v. Ramirez

Decision Date22 February 1988
Citation524 N.Y.S.2d 840,137 A.D.2d 770
PartiesThe PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Carmelo RAMIREZ, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

William Lupo, Brooklyn (Joseph Ostrowsky, of counsel), for appellant.

Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood and Leonard Joblove, of counsel; Marcia Thurmond, on the brief), for respondent.

Before THOMPSON, J.P., and BRACKEN, BROWN, WEINSTEIN and SPATT, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aiello, J.), rendered April 3, 1987, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was given an opportunity to address the court at the time of sentencing in connection with his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty (see, CPL 220.60; People v. Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d 926, 365 N.Y.S.2d 161, 324 N.E.2d 544; People v. Morris, 118 A.D.2d 595, 596, 499 N.Y.S.2d 13, lv. denied 67 N.Y.2d 947, 502 N.Y.S.2d 1040, 494 N.E.2d 125). The defendant failed at that time to assert any facts in support of his claim that he had a valid defense of justification, and so his current claim of innocence, which directly contradicts his plea allocution, was not substantiated ( see, People v. Dixon, 29 N.Y.2d 55, 57, 323 N.Y.S.2d 825, 272 N.E.2d 329; People v. Soto, 129 A.D.2d 748, 514 N.Y.S.2d 508, lv. denied 70 N.Y.2d 657, 518 N.Y.S.2d 1051, 512 N.E.2d 577). Also, the defendant's claim that he does not understand English is belied by a review of the extensive statements he made, in English, in response to various questions posed during the sentencing and plea proceedings, as well as during the course of his testimony before the Grand Jury. The defendant may not now claim that he misunderstood the terms of the plea bargain, which were clearly stated on the record and which are subject to but one interpretation ( see, People v. Cataldo, 39 N.Y.2d 578, 580, 384 N.Y.S.2d 763, 349 N.E.2d 863; People v. Welch, 129 A.D.2d 752, 514 N.Y.S.2d 513).

We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • People v. Blount
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • April 22, 2022
    ...the plea bargain, which were clearly stated on the record and which are subject to but one interpretation" ( People v. Ramirez , 137 A.D.2d 770, 770, 524 N.Y.S.2d 840 [2d Dept. 1988], lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 1031, 530 N.Y.S.2d 567, 526 N.E.2d 59 [1988] ; see People v. Howell , 60 A.D.3d 1347, 1......
  • People v. Redd
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • February 22, 1988
  • People v. Ferrer
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • February 8, 1990
    ...permitted to address the court directly, and then urging, among other things, that his was "a case of entrapment". See People v. Ramirez, 137 A.D.2d 770, 524 N.Y.S.2d 840. In light of this record, we find that defendant, who was no stranger to courtroom proceedings, see People v. Frederick,......
  • People v. Ramirez
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 3, 1988

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT