People v. Buglione

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Buglione

11 A.D.3d 297, 782 N.Y.S.2d 452, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11958

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

DecidedOctober 14, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 11 A.D.3d 297 (People v. Buglione) 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. Buglione, 11 A.D.3d 297, 782 N.Y.S.2d 452, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11958 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

[298]*298Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Brenda Soloff, J.), rendered May 13, 2003, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of lVs to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s contention that the court should have conducted further inquiry and ordered a new presentence report before imposing sentence is unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that since the court had warned defendant that if he violated the terms of his plea agreement he was subject to a possible sentence of SVs to 25 years, and since defendant does not dispute the court’s findings that he violated the agreement by failing to complete a drug aftercare program, by failing to make a court appearance, and by being arrested and convicted of a new crime, the court was justified in imposing a prison sentence of l1 Is to 4 years (see People v Figgins, 87 NY2d 840 [1995]). Under these circumstances, there was no need to inquire into the circumstances of a prison disciplinary charge that was mentioned at sentencing, or to order a new presentence report.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Tom, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Marlow and Sweeny, JJ.

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

[298]*298Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Brenda Soloff, J.), rendered May 13, 2003, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of lVs to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s contention that the court should have conducted further inquiry and ordered a new presentence report before imposing sentence is unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that since the court had warned defendant that if he violated the terms of his plea agreement he was subject to a possible sentence of SVs to 25 years, and since defendant does not dispute the court’s findings that he violated the agreement by failing to complete a drug aftercare program, by failing to make a court appearance, and by being arrested and convicted of a new crime, the court was justified in imposing a prison sentence of l1 Is to 4 years (see People v Figgins, 87 NY2d 840 [1995]). Under these circumstances, there was no need to inquire into the circumstances of a prison disciplinary charge that was mentioned at sentencing, or to order a new presentence report.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Tom, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Marlow and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.3d 297, 782 N.Y.S.2d 452, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11958, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-buglione-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack