People v. Cecere

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cecere

39 A.D.3d 557, 831 N.Y.S.2d 723

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

DecidedApril 3, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 39 A.D.3d 557 (People v. Cecere) 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. Cecere, 39 A.D.3d 557, 831 N.Y.S.2d 723 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Meyer, J.), rendered January 24, 2005, convicting him of attempted assault in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

[558]*558Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s remarks at the time of sentencing did not constitute a motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that there was an unreasonable delay in sentencing. The defendant’s claim that the Supreme Court had been divested of jurisdiction over him because of the passage of time between his plea and the imposition of the sentence is not preserved for appellate review (see People v Young, 283 AD2d 597 [2001]; People v Branch, 281 AD2d 427, 428 [2001]). Under the circumstances of this case, we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Rivera, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Meyer, J.), rendered January 24, 2005, convicting him of attempted assault in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

[558]*558Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s remarks at the time of sentencing did not constitute a motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that there was an unreasonable delay in sentencing. The defendant’s claim that the Supreme Court had been divested of jurisdiction over him because of the passage of time between his plea and the imposition of the sentence is not preserved for appellate review (see People v Young, 283 AD2d 597 [2001]; People v Branch, 281 AD2d 427, 428 [2001]). Under the circumstances of this case, we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Rivera, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.3d 557, 831 N.Y.S.2d 723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cecere-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack