Legal Opinion

People v. Ellerbe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided April 8, 1985PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Inasmuch as the defendant failed to raise any objections to the sufficiency of the plea allocution or to the constitutionality of Penal Law § 70.06 in the court of first instance, he has failed to preserve these issues for appellate review as a matter of law (People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636; People v Rembert, 105 AD2d 717; People v Cates, 104 AD2d 895). Nor is reversal warranted in the interest of justice. There is “no requirement for a ‘uniform mandatory catechism of pleading defendants’ ” (People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 16, quoting from People v Nixon, 21 NY2d 338, 353, cert denied sub nom.…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. People v. HarrisNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
  2. People v. PellegrinoNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
  3. People v. KazepisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
  4. People v. NixonNew York Court of Appeals · 1967
  5. People v. MorseNew York Court of Appeals · 1984

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. People v. O'ConnellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API