People v. Curtis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Curtis

25 A.D.3d 619, 806 N.Y.S.2d 883

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

DecidedJanuary 17, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.3d 619 (People v. Curtis) 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. Curtis, 25 A.D.3d 619, 806 N.Y.S.2d 883 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Parker, J.), rendered January 26, 2004, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

[620]*620Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant did not effectively waive his right to appeal his sentence (see People v Messenger, 7 AD3d 642 [2004]; People v Boustani, 300 AD2d 313 [2002]; People v Dongo, 244 AD2d 353 [1997]). However, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions regarding his sentence are without merit. Cozier, J.P., Luciano, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Parker, J.), rendered January 26, 2004, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

[620]*620Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant did not effectively waive his right to appeal his sentence (see People v Messenger, 7 AD3d 642 [2004]; People v Boustani, 300 AD2d 313 [2002]; People v Dongo, 244 AD2d 353 [1997]). However, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions regarding his sentence are without merit. Cozier, J.P., Luciano, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.3d 619, 806 N.Y.S.2d 883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-curtis-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack