People v. Barcomb

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Barcomb

222 A.D.2d 959, 636 N.Y.S.2d 426, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13780

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

DecidedDecember 28, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 222 A.D.2d 959 (People v. Barcomb) 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. Barcomb, 222 A.D.2d 959, 636 N.Y.S.2d 426, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13780 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County (Lewis, J.), rendered April 11, 1994, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of sexual abuse in the first degree.

Defendant admitted to having sexual contact with a seven-year-old girl and pleaded guilty to the crime of sexual abuse in the first degree. The sentence agreed to as part of the plea agreement required that defendant spend six months in jail, five years on probation and participate in the Sexual Abuse Family Education and Restitution (hereinafter S.A.F.E.R) program. However, defendant was subsequently deemed ineligible to participate in the S.A.F.E.R program. As a result of this and County Court’s review of the presentence report, County Court announced its intention to impose the harshest sentence and gave defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea. Defendant declined to do so and was sentenced to 21/s to 7 years in prison.

Initially, we reject defendant’s contention that his guilty plea was conditioned upon his acceptance into the S.A.F.E.R program. The record reveals that defendant was given the opportunity to confer with his attorney and withdraw his guilty plea after he was advised that the sentence originally agreed to would not be imposed. Defendant chose not to do so even though he knew of the court’s intention to impose the harshest sentence. Furthermore, we have considered defendant’s claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel and find it to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, Casey and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County (Lewis, J.), rendered April 11, 1994, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of sexual abuse in the first degree.

Defendant admitted to having sexual contact with a seven-year-old girl and pleaded guilty to the crime of sexual abuse in the first degree. The sentence agreed to as part of the plea agreement required that defendant spend six months in jail, five years on probation and participate in the Sexual Abuse Family Education and Restitution (hereinafter S.A.F.E.R) program. However, defendant was subsequently deemed ineligible to participate in the S.A.F.E.R program. As a result of this and County Court’s review of the presentence report, County Court announced its intention to impose the harshest sentence and gave defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea. Defendant declined to do so and was sentenced to 21/s to 7 years in prison.

Initially, we reject defendant’s contention that his guilty plea was conditioned upon his acceptance into the S.A.F.E.R program. The record reveals that defendant was given the opportunity to confer with his attorney and withdraw his guilty plea after he was advised that the sentence originally agreed to would not be imposed. Defendant chose not to do so even though he knew of the court’s intention to impose the harshest sentence. Furthermore, we have considered defendant’s claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel and find it to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, Casey and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 959, 636 N.Y.S.2d 426, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13780, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-barcomb-nyappdiv-1995.