People v. Cromwell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cromwell

294 A.D.2d 917, 741 N.Y.S.2d 478

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

DecidedMay 3, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 294 A.D.2d 917 (People v. Cromwell) 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. Cromwell, 294 A.D.2d 917, 741 N.Y.S.2d 478 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of Oneida County Court (Donalty, J.), entered March 16, 2000, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement that included the waiver of his right to appeal, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]) in full satisfaction of the charges against him and was sentenced as a second felony offender to an indeterminate term of incarceration of 7 to 14 years. By failing to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court abused its discretion in accepting his plea because it included a waiver of the right to appeal (see generally People v Hobart, 286 AD2d 916, 916, lv [918]*918denied 97 NY2d 683). The challenge of defendant to the severity of the sentence is encompassed by his waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737). In any event, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Pine, J.P., Hurlbutt, Burns, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Appeal from a judgment of Oneida County Court (Donalty, J.), entered March 16, 2000, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement that included the waiver of his right to appeal, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]) in full satisfaction of the charges against him and was sentenced as a second felony offender to an indeterminate term of incarceration of 7 to 14 years. By failing to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court abused its discretion in accepting his plea because it included a waiver of the right to appeal (see generally People v Hobart, 286 AD2d 916, 916, lv [918]*918denied 97 NY2d 683). The challenge of defendant to the severity of the sentence is encompassed by his waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737). In any event, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Pine, J.P., Hurlbutt, Burns, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 917, 741 N.Y.S.2d 478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cromwell-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack