People v. Colley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Colley

289 A.D.2d 1021, 735 N.Y.S.2d 449, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12707

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

DecidedDecember 21, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 1021 (People v. Colley) 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. Colley, 289 A.D.2d 1021, 735 N.Y.S.2d 449, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12707 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant did not object to the sentence imposed, nor did she move to withdraw her plea of guilty or vacate the judgment of conviction. Defendant therefore failed, to preserve for our review her contention that County Court erred in enhancing her sentence (see, People v Perry, 252 AD2d 990, lv. denied 92 NY2d 929). In any event, that contention lacks merit. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court did not impose an enhanced sentence. The court informed defendant before she entered her plea that a fine would be imposed as part of the sentence and that the maximum fine would be $5,000. The further contention of defendant concerning the severity of the sentence does not survive her waiver of the right to appeal (see, People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827). (Appeal from Judgment of Cattaraugus County Court, Himelein, J. — Felony Driving While Intoxicated.) Present — Hayes, J. P., Scudder, Burns, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant did not object to the sentence imposed, nor did she move to withdraw her plea of guilty or vacate the judgment of conviction. Defendant therefore failed, to preserve for our review her contention that County Court erred in enhancing her sentence (see, People v Perry, 252 AD2d 990, lv. denied 92 NY2d 929). In any event, that contention lacks merit. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court did not impose an enhanced sentence. The court informed defendant before she entered her plea that a fine would be imposed as part of the sentence and that the maximum fine would be $5,000. The further contention of defendant concerning the severity of the sentence does not survive her waiver of the right to appeal (see, People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827). (Appeal from Judgment of Cattaraugus County Court, Himelein, J. — Felony Driving While Intoxicated.) Present — Hayes, J. P., Scudder, Burns, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 1021, 735 N.Y.S.2d 449, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-colley-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack