People v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Brown

301 A.D.2d 797, 753 N.Y.S.2d 401, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 252

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

DecidedJanuary 16, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 301 A.D.2d 797 (People v. Brown) 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. Brown, 301 A.D.2d 797, 753 N.Y.S.2d 401, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 252 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Crew III, J.P.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Hayden, J.), rendered April 13, 2001, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Defendant was indicted and charged with five counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and one count of criminal sale of a firearm in the third degree. Thereafter, defendant pleaded guilty to the first count of the indictment in full satisfaction thereof and was sentenced, as a second felony offender, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 7V2 to 15 years.

The arguments raised by defendant on appeal do not warrant extended discussion. Defendant initially asserts that there was insufficient evidence to support the indictment. By pleading guilty, however, defendant forfeited his right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence presented to the grand jury (see e.g. People v Pelchat, 62 NY2d 97, 108), and the narrow exception to this rule (see id. at 109) is not applicable here. Nor are we persuaded that the sentence imposed was harsh or excessive. The underlying sentence, which was well within the permissible statutory range, was part of an agreed-upon plea bargain, and our review of the record discloses no extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction thereof. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Carpinello, Mugglin, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Crew III, J.P.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Hayden, J.), rendered April 13, 2001, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Defendant was indicted and charged with five counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and one count of criminal sale of a firearm in the third degree. Thereafter, defendant pleaded guilty to the first count of the indictment in full satisfaction thereof and was sentenced, as a second felony offender, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 7V2 to 15 years.

The arguments raised by defendant on appeal do not warrant extended discussion. Defendant initially asserts that there was insufficient evidence to support the indictment. By pleading guilty, however, defendant forfeited his right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence presented to the grand jury (see e.g. People v Pelchat, 62 NY2d 97, 108), and the narrow exception to this rule (see id. at 109) is not applicable here. Nor are we persuaded that the sentence imposed was harsh or excessive. The underlying sentence, which was well within the permissible statutory range, was part of an agreed-upon plea bargain, and our review of the record discloses no extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction thereof. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Carpinello, Mugglin, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 A.D.2d 797, 753 N.Y.S.2d 401, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 252, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-brown-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack