People v. Day

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Day

133 A.D.3d 920, 18 N.Y.S.3d 566

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

DecidedNovember 5, 2015

Docket106486

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 133 A.D.3d 920 (People v. Day) 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. Day, 133 A.D.3d 920, 18 N.Y.S.3d 566 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County (LaBuda, J.), rendered December 19, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts).

Faced with a five-count indictment and potential lengthy consecutive sentences, defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree in satisfaction of the indictment and waived his right to appeal in exchange for a prison sentence of either 5V2 or 6 years. County Court sentenced defendant, a second felony offender, to six years in prison followed by a period of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals arguing that his sentence is excessive.

We affirm. Assuming, without deciding, that defendant’s appeal waiver was invalid so as to permit consideration of the sentence issue (see People v Rolley, 100 AD3d 1263, 1263-1264 [2012]; People v Caines, 268 AD2d 790, 791 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 833 [2000]; cf. People v Vellon, 128 AD3d 1274, 1275 [2015] ), we nevertheless find neither an abuse of discretion nor extraordinary circumstances meriting a reduction of defendant’s sentence in light of his criminal record and the imposition of a sentence within the agreed range (see People v Rabideau, 130 AD3d 1094, 1095 [2015]).

Peters, P.J., Garry and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County (LaBuda, J.), rendered December 19, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts).

Faced with a five-count indictment and potential lengthy consecutive sentences, defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree in satisfaction of the indictment and waived his right to appeal in exchange for a prison sentence of either 5V2 or 6 years. County Court sentenced defendant, a second felony offender, to six years in prison followed by a period of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals arguing that his sentence is excessive.

We affirm. Assuming, without deciding, that defendant’s appeal waiver was invalid so as to permit consideration of the sentence issue (see People v Rolley, 100 AD3d 1263, 1263-1264 [2012]; People v Caines, 268 AD2d 790, 791 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 833 [2000]; cf. People v Vellon, 128 AD3d 1274, 1275 [2015] ), we nevertheless find neither an abuse of discretion nor extraordinary circumstances meriting a reduction of defendant’s sentence in light of his criminal record and the imposition of a sentence within the agreed range (see People v Rabideau, 130 AD3d 1094, 1095 [2015]).

Peters, P.J., Garry and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 A.D.3d 920, 18 N.Y.S.3d 566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-day-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack