People v. Andrews

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Andrews

29 A.D.3d 599, 813 N.Y.S.2d 314

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

DecidedMay 2, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 29 A.D.3d 599 (People v. Andrews) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Andrews, 29 A.D.3d 599, 813 N.Y.S.2d 314 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Dickerson, J.), rendered January 28, 2003, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant argues that his sentence was imposed in violation of CPL 400.21. However, because the defendant is not adversely affected by the illegality of the sentence, and the People have not cross-appealed, modification or vacatur of the judgment or sentence is not warranted on this ground (see People v Alvarez, 166 AD2d 603 [1990]; People v Pratt, 119 AD2d 839 [1986]; CPL 470.15 [1]; see also People v Gray, 181 AD2d 831 [1992]; People v Coffey, 124 AD2d 814 [1986]).

The defendant’s remaining contention concerns matter which is dehors the record and may not be reached on direct appeal (see People v Reels, 17 AD3d 488 [2005]). Schmidt, J.P., Skelos, Lunn and Dillon, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Dickerson, J.), rendered January 28, 2003, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant argues that his sentence was imposed in violation of CPL 400.21. However, because the defendant is not adversely affected by the illegality of the sentence, and the People have not cross-appealed, modification or vacatur of the judgment or sentence is not warranted on this ground (see People v Alvarez, 166 AD2d 603 [1990]; People v Pratt, 119 AD2d 839 [1986]; CPL 470.15 [1]; see also People v Gray, 181 AD2d 831 [1992]; People v Coffey, 124 AD2d 814 [1986]).

The defendant’s remaining contention concerns matter which is dehors the record and may not be reached on direct appeal (see People v Reels, 17 AD3d 488 [2005]). Schmidt, J.P., Skelos, Lunn and Dillon, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.3d 599, 813 N.Y.S.2d 314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-andrews-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack