People v. Ellerbe
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
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
- People v. HarrisNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- People v. PellegrinoNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- People v. KazepisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
- People v. NixonNew York Court of Appeals · 1967
- People v. MorseNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- People v. O'ConnellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985