People v. Denegar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Denegar

253 A.D.2d 908, 678 N.Y.S.2d 309, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9390

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

DecidedSeptember 10, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 253 A.D.2d 908 (People v. Denegar) 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. Denegar, 253 A.D.2d 908, 678 N.Y.S.2d 309, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9390 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Rosen, J.), rendered September 2, 1997, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the third degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to burglary in the third degree in satisfaction of a superior court information and agreed to. a sentence of five years’ probation with the first six months to be served in jail. Defendant now contends that the sentence was harsh and excessive and should be reduced in the interest of [909]*909justice. Inasmuch as defendant does not dispute that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal as a condition of the plea agreement, his challenge to the severity of his sentence is not preserved for our review (see, People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733). In any event, were we to consider the argument, we would find it to be without merit. Defendant received the sentence that he bargained for and has failed to point to any extraordinary circumstances warranting our intervention (see, People v Leibach, 249 AD2d 636).

Mikoll, J. P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Rosen, J.), rendered September 2, 1997, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the third degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to burglary in the third degree in satisfaction of a superior court information and agreed to. a sentence of five years’ probation with the first six months to be served in jail. Defendant now contends that the sentence was harsh and excessive and should be reduced in the interest of [909]*909justice. Inasmuch as defendant does not dispute that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal as a condition of the plea agreement, his challenge to the severity of his sentence is not preserved for our review (see, People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733). In any event, were we to consider the argument, we would find it to be without merit. Defendant received the sentence that he bargained for and has failed to point to any extraordinary circumstances warranting our intervention (see, People v Leibach, 249 AD2d 636).

Mikoll, J. P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 908, 678 N.Y.S.2d 309, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-denegar-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack