People v. Copeland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Copeland

281 A.D.2d 985, 721 N.Y.S.2d 896, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2910

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

DecidedMarch 21, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 281 A.D.2d 985 (People v. Copeland) 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. Copeland, 281 A.D.2d 985, 721 N.Y.S.2d 896, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2910 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment entered upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [3]) and two counts of rape in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.35 [1]) in satisfaction of a 13-count indictment charging him in connection with the rape, attempted rape and robbery of four young women. Contrary to the contention of defendant, County Court did not include post-release supervision as part of his sentence. In any event, defendant is not subject to the post-release supervision imposed in Penal Law § 70.45 (1) because the violent felonies of which he is convicted were committed prior to September 1, 1998 (see, Donnino, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 39, Penal Law § 70.45, 2001 Pocket Part, at 120).

Defendant failed to request an adjournment when it was discovered at sentencing that he was not notified seven days prior thereto that representatives of two of the victims intended [986]*986to make a statement at sentencing (see, CPL 380.50 [2] [b]). Thus, defendant waived his present contention that the court erred in permitting the representatives to speak. Defendant’s sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, McCarthy, J. — Rape, 1st Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Kehoe, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment entered upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [3]) and two counts of rape in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.35 [1]) in satisfaction of a 13-count indictment charging him in connection with the rape, attempted rape and robbery of four young women. Contrary to the contention of defendant, County Court did not include post-release supervision as part of his sentence. In any event, defendant is not subject to the post-release supervision imposed in Penal Law § 70.45 (1) because the violent felonies of which he is convicted were committed prior to September 1, 1998 (see, Donnino, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 39, Penal Law § 70.45, 2001 Pocket Part, at 120).

Defendant failed to request an adjournment when it was discovered at sentencing that he was not notified seven days prior thereto that representatives of two of the victims intended [986]*986to make a statement at sentencing (see, CPL 380.50 [2] [b]). Thus, defendant waived his present contention that the court erred in permitting the representatives to speak. Defendant’s sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, McCarthy, J. — Rape, 1st Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Kehoe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 985, 721 N.Y.S.2d 896, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-copeland-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack