People v. Dickenson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dickenson

262 A.D.2d 215, 691 N.Y.S.2d 769, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7441

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

DecidedJune 22, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 215 (People v. Dickenson) 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. Dickenson, 262 A.D.2d 215, 691 N.Y.S.2d 769, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7441 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgments, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John Byrne, J., at pleas; Lawrence Bernstein, J., at sentence), rendered August 17, 1994, [216]*216convicting defendant of conspiracy in the second degree and grand larceny in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 3 to 9 years and 1 to 3 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Since defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the indictment is a claim of factual insufficiency, such claim is waived by defendant’s guilty plea (People v Iannone, 45 NY2d 589, 600-601), as well as being unpreserved and without merit.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Tom, Wallach and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Judgments, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John Byrne, J., at pleas; Lawrence Bernstein, J., at sentence), rendered August 17, 1994, [216]*216convicting defendant of conspiracy in the second degree and grand larceny in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 3 to 9 years and 1 to 3 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Since defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the indictment is a claim of factual insufficiency, such claim is waived by defendant’s guilty plea (People v Iannone, 45 NY2d 589, 600-601), as well as being unpreserved and without merit.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Tom, Wallach and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 215, 691 N.Y.S.2d 769, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dickenson-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack