People v. Carrillo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Carrillo

2 A.D.3d 260, 768 N.Y.S.2d 326

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

DecidedDecember 16, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 2 A.D.3d 260 (People v. Carrillo) 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. Carrillo, 2 A.D.3d 260, 768 N.Y.S.2d 326 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Cataldo, J.), rendered September 10, 2002, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s contention that the court erred in enhancing his bargained-for sentence without conducting a sufficient inquiry to determine the validity of his postplea arrest is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the sentencing enhancement was proper (see People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702, 713-714 [1993]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Cataldo, J.), rendered September 10, 2002, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s contention that the court erred in enhancing his bargained-for sentence without conducting a sufficient inquiry to determine the validity of his postplea arrest is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the sentencing enhancement was proper (see People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702, 713-714 [1993]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.3d 260, 768 N.Y.S.2d 326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-carrillo-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack