People v. Cheatham

278 A.D.2d 889, 718 N.Y.S.2d 913, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13421
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 27, 2000·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that Supreme Court failed to exercise its discretion in resentencing him following a violation of probation. Although defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass defendant’s resentencing following a violation of probation (see, People v Rodriguez, 259 AD2d 1040), we conclude that the court did not fail to exercise its discretion in resentencing defendant (see, People v Wright, 239 AD2d 945; cf., People v Nicholson, 237 AD2d 973, lv denied 90 NY2d 908). Furthermore, the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Tills, J. — Violation of Probation.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

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

People v. Cheatham, 278 A.D.2d 889, 718 N.Y.S.2d 913, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13421 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

278 A.D.2d 889 (People v. Cheatham) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Rowland
11 A.D.3d 825 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)