People v. Belile

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Belile

59 A.D.3d 1002, 872 N.Y.S.2d 355

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 6, 2009·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Wayne County Court (John B. Nesbitt, J.), rendered October 18, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of aggravated unlicensed operation of a [1003]*1003motor vehicle in the first degree, driving while intoxicated, a class E felony, and attempted forgery in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, attempted forgery in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 170.10 [3]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court erred in enhancing the sentence without affording him the opportunity to withdraw his plea (see People v VanDeViver, 56 AD3d 1118 [2008]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]; cf. People v Waggoner, 53 AD3d 1143, 1144 [2008]; People v Fornby, 42 AD3d 894, 895 [2007]). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present— Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Smith, Centra and Peradotto, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Wayne County Court (John B. Nesbitt, J.), rendered October 18, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of aggravated unlicensed operation of a [1003]*1003motor vehicle in the first degree, driving while intoxicated, a class E felony, and attempted forgery in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, attempted forgery in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 170.10 [3]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court erred in enhancing the sentence without affording him the opportunity to withdraw his plea (see People v VanDeViver, 56 AD3d 1118 [2008]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]; cf. People v Waggoner, 53 AD3d 1143, 1144 [2008]; People v Fornby, 42 AD3d 894, 895 [2007]). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present— Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Smith, Centra and Peradotto, JJ.

People v. Belile, 59 A.D.3d 1002, 872 N.Y.S.2d 355 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

59 A.D.3d 1002 (People v. Belile) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related