People v. Birmingham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Birmingham

46 A.D.3d 1469, 847 N.Y.S.2d 887

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

DecidedDecember 21, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 46 A.D.3d 1469 (People v. Birmingham) 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. Birmingham, 46 A.D.3d 1469, 847 N.Y.S.2d 887 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a [1470]*1470judgment of the Steuben County Court (Joseph W. Latham, J.), rendered March 16, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.06 [5]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution inasmuch as he failed to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]; see also People v Johnson, 82 NY2d 683, 685 [1993]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, this case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation requirement (see Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Smith, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.

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

Appeal from a [1470]*1470judgment of the Steuben County Court (Joseph W. Latham, J.), rendered March 16, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.06 [5]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution inasmuch as he failed to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]; see also People v Johnson, 82 NY2d 683, 685 [1993]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, this case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation requirement (see Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Smith, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.3d 1469, 847 N.Y.S.2d 887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-birmingham-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack