People v. Darby

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Darby

304 A.D.2d 672, 757 N.Y.S.2d 486

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

DecidedApril 14, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 304 A.D.2d 672 (People v. Darby) 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. Darby, 304 A.D.2d 672, 757 N.Y.S.2d 486 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the County Court, Putnam County (Miller, J.), rendered May 9, 2002, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court (Braatz, J.), upon her admission that she violated a condition thereof, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon her previous conviction of driving while intoxicated.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is [673]*673without merit (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]). In addition, the defendant’s admission to the violation of probation was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made (see People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9 [1983]).

Since the defendant has completed the sentence imposed, the issue of whether that sentence was excessive has been rendered academic (see People v Waddy, 240 AD2d 521 [1997]). Santucci, J.P., Krausman, McGinity, Schmidt and Crane, 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 County Court, Putnam County (Miller, J.), rendered May 9, 2002, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court (Braatz, J.), upon her admission that she violated a condition thereof, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon her previous conviction of driving while intoxicated.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is [673]*673without merit (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]). In addition, the defendant’s admission to the violation of probation was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made (see People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9 [1983]).

Since the defendant has completed the sentence imposed, the issue of whether that sentence was excessive has been rendered academic (see People v Waddy, 240 AD2d 521 [1997]). Santucci, J.P., Krausman, McGinity, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 672, 757 N.Y.S.2d 486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-darby-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack