People v. Valdivia
| Decision Date | 01 November 1993 |
| Citation | 198 A.D.2d 246,604 N.Y.S.2d 807 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Juan VALDIVIA, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Charles Lavine, Forest Hills, for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Steven J. Chananie and Linda Cantoni, of counsel; Elizabeth V. Rose on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Chetta, J.), rendered January 23, 1991, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claim that his plea of guilty was not entered into knowingly and intelligently because the court did not inquire as to whether he understood English is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Espinal, 176 A.D.2d 417, 574 N.Y.S.2d 406). In any event, the record demonstrates that the defendant understood the significance and effect of his plea and that he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered a plea of guilty (see, People v. Williams, 189 A.D.2d 910, 592 N.Y.S.2d 471; People v. Espinal, supra ).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- People v. Vale
-
People v. Tong
...(see, People v. Marrero, 162 A.D.2d 419, 557 N.Y.S.2d 73; People v. Looney, 111 A.D.2d 934, 491 N.Y.S.2d 43; see also, People v. Valdivia, 198 A.D.2d 246, 604 N.Y.S.2d 807). The defendant's contentions that his plea should be vacated due to ineffective assistance of counsel are likewise unp......
- People v. Valdivia