People v. Ramos, 2003-10542.

Decision Date26 September 2005
Docket Number2003-10542.
PartiesTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CARLOS RAMOS, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Although the record indicates that the defendant had undergone psychiatric treatment, "[t]here was not the slightest indication that [the] defendant was uninformed, confused or incompetent" when he entered the plea, which included a waiver of his right to appeal his sentence (People v. Alexander, 97 NY2d 482, 486 [2002]; see People v. James, 192 AD2d 555 [1993]; People v. Sanchez, 186 AD2d 599 [1992]; People v. Riginio, 168 AD2d 693 [1990]). Accordingly, the sentence is affirmed.

Prudenti, P.J., Cozier, Goldstein and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • People v. Debenedetto
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • September 24, 2014
    ...908; People v. Miranda, 67 A.D.3d 709, 710, 886 N.Y.S.2d 890; People v. M'Lady, 59 A.D.3d 568, 873 N.Y.S.2d 331; People v. Ramos, 21 A.D.3d 1125, 801 N.Y.S.2d 155, affd.7 N.Y.3d 737, 819 N.Y.S.2d 853, 853 N.E.2d 222). During the plea colloquy, the defendant stated that her prescription medi......
  • People v. Ramos
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • February 24, 2006
  • People v. Rutledge, 2003-04026.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • September 26, 2005
  • People v. Ramos
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • March 23, 2006
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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