People v. Cato

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cato

291 A.D.2d 905, 738 N.Y.S.2d 269, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1150

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 291 A.D.2d 905 (People v. Cato) 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. Cato, 291 A.D.2d 905, 738 N.Y.S.2d 269, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1150 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of Ontario County Court (Doran, J.), entered March 23, 2001, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of, inter alia, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (four counts).

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 her, upon her plea of guilty, of three counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]) and three counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (Penal Law § 220.03) and sentencing her as a second felony offender to the minimum term of incarceration of 4V2 to 9 years. Contrary to the contention of defendant, County Court properly arraigned her upon the second felony information. When the court asked defendant whether she wished to controvert any of the facts contained in the second felony information, defendant stated that she did not wish to do so, and thus those facts are deemed admitted by her (see, CPL 400.21 [3]). Defendant contends for the first time on appeal that the mandatory sentencing provisions for drug crimes constitute cruel and unusual punishment and therefore failed to preserve that contention for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Rosado, 123 AD2d 334, 335, lv denied 68 NY2d 1003). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Hayes, Scudder and Gorski, JJ.

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

—Appeal from a judgment of Ontario County Court (Doran, J.), entered March 23, 2001, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of, inter alia, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (four counts).

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 her, upon her plea of guilty, of three counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]) and three counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (Penal Law § 220.03) and sentencing her as a second felony offender to the minimum term of incarceration of 4V2 to 9 years. Contrary to the contention of defendant, County Court properly arraigned her upon the second felony information. When the court asked defendant whether she wished to controvert any of the facts contained in the second felony information, defendant stated that she did not wish to do so, and thus those facts are deemed admitted by her (see, CPL 400.21 [3]). Defendant contends for the first time on appeal that the mandatory sentencing provisions for drug crimes constitute cruel and unusual punishment and therefore failed to preserve that contention for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Rosado, 123 AD2d 334, 335, lv denied 68 NY2d 1003). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Hayes, Scudder and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 905, 738 N.Y.S.2d 269, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cato-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack