People v. De Simone
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- People v. Allen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- People v. McClure (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
- People v. Vera (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- People v. Cooper (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- People v. Thompson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- People v. McNeil (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- People v. Bourdonnay (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- People v. Rodriguez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- People v. Hagzan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- People v. Napoli (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Appeals by defendant from six judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), each rendered July 2, 1984, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree (two counts), criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree (three counts), and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing
Judgments affirmed.
We reject defendant’s contention that the court improperly denied his motion to withdraw his pleas of guilty inasmuch as the record reveals that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his rights and pleaded guilty (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9; People v Sprow, 104 AD2d 1056). The record provided no grounds for the withdrawal of those pleas (see, People v Ramos, 63 NY2d 640, 642-643). If defendant was dissatisfied with the terms of the proffered pleas his remedy was to refrain from pleading guilty (People v Jones, 81 AD2d 22, 23-24). We find defendant’s contentions that he was not adequately advised of his alternatives and the consequences of his pleas to be without merit. The record reveals that he was specifically advised of all the rights he was waiving by pleading guilty, including his possible defense of entrapment. Contrary to his contention that he was informed that he would receive mandatory maximum sentences if convicted after trial, we find that both the court and his attorney acted properly in advising him of the authorized maximum sentences which could have been imposed had he been convicted after trial. Brown, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.