People v. Arps

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Arps

293 A.D.2d 260, 739 N.Y.S.2d 268, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3402

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

DecidedApril 2, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 293 A.D.2d 260 (People v. Arps) 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. Arps, 293 A.D.2d 260, 739 N.Y.S.2d 268, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3402 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Phylis Skloot Bamberger, J., at hearing; Gerald Sheindlin, J., at plea; William Mogulescu, J., at sentence), rendered January 27, 2000, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of six years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. The police officer’s observation of a bulge in defendant’s waistband, as well as what appeared to be the protruding handle of a gun, provided reasonable suspicion to stop defendant (People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 763). The record fails to support defendant’s claim that the officer’s view was obstructed so he could not have made these observations prior to stopping defendant.

Defendant’s claim that he was deprived of effective assis[261]*261tance of counsel at the hearing because his counsel had insufficient time to prepare is not supported by the record, and, based on the record, we find that defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714).

Defendant’s plea was not rendered involuntary by the circumstance that the court did not inform him that he would be adjudicated a second felony offender (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9). The record establishes that defendant knowingly and intelligently pleaded guilty. At the plea proceeding, the court expressly informed defendant of the specific range of sentences he faced which were, in fact, the minimum and maximum sentences, respectively, for a second felony offender convicted of a class D violent felony. Defendant absconded prior to sentence in violation of the plea agreement and was convicted of a new crime in New Jersey. Nevertheless, the court imposed an enhanced sentence that was less than the agreed sentence.

We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing.

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Buckley, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Phylis Skloot Bamberger, J., at hearing; Gerald Sheindlin, J., at plea; William Mogulescu, J., at sentence), rendered January 27, 2000, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of six years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. The police officer’s observation of a bulge in defendant’s waistband, as well as what appeared to be the protruding handle of a gun, provided reasonable suspicion to stop defendant (People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 763). The record fails to support defendant’s claim that the officer’s view was obstructed so he could not have made these observations prior to stopping defendant.

Defendant’s claim that he was deprived of effective assis[261]*261tance of counsel at the hearing because his counsel had insufficient time to prepare is not supported by the record, and, based on the record, we find that defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714).

Defendant’s plea was not rendered involuntary by the circumstance that the court did not inform him that he would be adjudicated a second felony offender (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9). The record establishes that defendant knowingly and intelligently pleaded guilty. At the plea proceeding, the court expressly informed defendant of the specific range of sentences he faced which were, in fact, the minimum and maximum sentences, respectively, for a second felony offender convicted of a class D violent felony. Defendant absconded prior to sentence in violation of the plea agreement and was convicted of a new crime in New Jersey. Nevertheless, the court imposed an enhanced sentence that was less than the agreed sentence.

We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing.

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Buckley, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 260, 739 N.Y.S.2d 268, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-arps-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack