People v. Conley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Conley

19 A.D.3d 809, 796 N.Y.S.2d 563, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6785

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

DecidedJune 16, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 19 A.D.3d 809 (People v. Conley) 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. Conley, 19 A.D.3d 809, 796 N.Y.S.2d 563, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6785 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany of Albany [810]*810County (Herrick, J.), rendered September 25, 2003, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Defendant was charged in an indictment with two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. He pleaded guilty to one count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree in full satisfaction of the indictment and waived his right to appeal. Under the terms of the plea agreement, defendant was to receive a prison sentence of 6V2 to 13 years to run concurrently with any other sentence he was then serving. Thereafter, he was sentenced as a predicate felon in accordance with the plea agreement.

Defendant’s primary contention on appeal is that the sentence is harsh and excessive. However, inasmuch as the record discloses that defendant entered a knowing, voluntary and intelligent guilty plea and waiver of the right to appeal, we decline to address his claim (see People v Clow, 10 AD3d 803, 804 [2004]). Accordingly, the judgment must be affirmed.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Carpinello, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany of Albany [810]*810County (Herrick, J.), rendered September 25, 2003, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Defendant was charged in an indictment with two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. He pleaded guilty to one count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree in full satisfaction of the indictment and waived his right to appeal. Under the terms of the plea agreement, defendant was to receive a prison sentence of 6V2 to 13 years to run concurrently with any other sentence he was then serving. Thereafter, he was sentenced as a predicate felon in accordance with the plea agreement.

Defendant’s primary contention on appeal is that the sentence is harsh and excessive. However, inasmuch as the record discloses that defendant entered a knowing, voluntary and intelligent guilty plea and waiver of the right to appeal, we decline to address his claim (see People v Clow, 10 AD3d 803, 804 [2004]). Accordingly, the judgment must be affirmed.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Carpinello, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.3d 809, 796 N.Y.S.2d 563, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-conley-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack