AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. CERRONE BELL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

After a thorough inquiry, the court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea (see, People v. Frederick, 45 N.Y.2d 520). The record reveals that the plea was made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Defendant's contentions in support of his motion to withdraw the plea were clearly refuted by the plea allocution record.

Since defendant failed to challenge the propriety of his second felony offender adjudication on the ground now asserted, his claim is unpreserved for appellate review (People v. Smith, 73 N.Y.2d 961). "A sufficiently specific motion might [have] provid[ed] the opportunity for cure" (People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 20) by alerting the People to the necessity of obtaining the accusatory instrument upon which defendant was convicted in Connecticut, for the purpose of equivalency analysis pursuant to People v. Muniz ( 74 N.Y.2d 464), and we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PEOPLE v. BELL
(Jun 5, 2001)