People v Jose A. Cruz
Annotate this Case
People v Cruz
2003 NY Slip Op 20260 [2 AD3d 1490]
Decided on December 31, 2003
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Decided on December 31, 2003
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., GREEN, SCUDDER, GORSKI, AND LAWTON, JJ.
1653 KA 02-02205
[*1]PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, ORDER
v
JOSE A. CRUZ, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from a judgment of Monroe County Court (Maloy, J.), entered August 14, 2002, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of attempted robbery in the second degree.
EDWARD J. NOWAK, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (SHIRLEY A. GORMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
HOWARD R. RELIN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (WENDY EVANS LEHMANN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Entered: December 31, 2003JoAnn M. Wahl
Clerk of the Court
Decided on December 31, 2003
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., GREEN, SCUDDER, GORSKI, AND LAWTON, JJ.
1653 KA 02-02205
[*1]PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, ORDER
v
JOSE A. CRUZ, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from a judgment of Monroe County Court (Maloy, J.), entered August 14, 2002, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of attempted robbery in the second degree.
EDWARD J. NOWAK, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (SHIRLEY A. GORMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
HOWARD R. RELIN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (WENDY EVANS LEHMANN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Entered: December 31, 2003JoAnn M. Wahl
Clerk of the Court
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
